BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Prince George of Cambridge

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House that he had replies from Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge in response to an address and message from this House on the birth of a son to the Duke of Cambridge.
	From Her Majesty:
	I thank you most sincerely for your loyal and dutiful address and congratulations on the occasion of the birth of my great-grandson. The Duke of Edinburgh and I are greatly touched by the good wishes which you have expressed towards my family.
	From His Royal Highness:
	The Duchess of Cambridge and I thank you most sincerely for your loyal congratulations on the occasion of the birth of our son. We are greatly touched by your good wishes.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Democratic Republic of Congo

Tom Blenkinsop: What recent steps she has taken to improve the humanitarian situation in Democratic Republic of Congo.

Justine Greening: May I take this opportunity to welcome the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and his colleagues to their Front-Bench roles in International Development? I also offer the apologies of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who is unable to be here today. She is visiting Uganda to see what more DFID can do to improve the lives of the millions of people living with disabilities in the developing world.
	I am deeply concerned by the ongoing conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. For that reason, last week DFID agreed an additional £5 million of UK funding. That funding will provide life-saving interventions to more than 130,000 people and support protection for girls, women and children affected by the conflict.

Tom Blenkinsop: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. The UK is the second largest bilateral donor to the DRC. Does she agree that the UK should therefore seek to play a leading role in the humanitarian effort, including the opening of a DFID office in the east of the country?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we are the single largest contributor to the common humanitarian fund, which does precisely what I think he wants us to do—provide the humanitarian support needed by so many people affected by the conflict. Alongside that work, we have an additional fund for emergency response; that focuses particularly on providing for people’s health and sanitation needs. As I have explained, I have extended that by a further six months. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are absolutely playing a leading role in that regard.

Henry Bellingham: A large amount of money is involved and a significant amount is, rightly, being spent on the crisis. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is essential that her Department gets the full support and co-operation of the DRC Government? Does she also agree that it is equally essential to have the total engagement and commitment of the President of the DRC? In the past, that has not been fully forthcoming.

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ultimately, we need a political solution to the conflict, and that has to be led by President Kabila. The solution also has to be regional if it is to be sustainable. Furthermore, Mary Robinson, the special envoy appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General, can have a key role in bringing together the various countries that must be brought together if we are finally to achieve long lasting and long overdue peace.

Helen Goodman: Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the mobile phone companies that source some of their rare minerals in Democratic Republic of Congo, thereby financing the warring parties? If she has not, may I suggest that she does?

Justine Greening: I very much take the hon. Lady’s point on board. A lot of DFID’s work is in addressing corruption, and that includes illicit flows of money. As part of the G8 this year, for example, we led the way on challenging the leading economies of the world to up their game on tax, trade and transparency. Illicit flows of money were a core part of that. I assure the hon. Lady that I take her point on board and will follow it up.

Philip Hollobone: Is it not the case that diarrhoea caused through poor sanitation is one of the leading causes of infant mortality in the developing world, and that in the Congo it results in the second highest rate of infant mortality in Africa? How many people will benefit from Britain’s investment in the water and sanitation system in that benighted country?

Justine Greening: We have delivered life-saving support to 2.1 million people in DRC. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we look at the millennium development goal on
	child mortality, we see that one of the reasons it has not had more success is the continued fatal effect of diarrhoea. He is right to highlight that. It is one of the things we particularly work on in DRC, and it is why sanitation is so key.

Alison McGovern: The Secretary of State will know that 46% of people in DRC are under the age of 14, and reports say that youth unemployment is nearly 90%. Will she say a little more about the long-term plans for DRC? What conversations has she had with colleagues in the international community about getting those children to school and giving those young people a future?

Justine Greening: I very much welcome that question. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that one of the key challenges in DRC is to blend together what we are doing from a humanitarian perspective with the country’s longer-term development needs. That is why we are keen to see a long-lasting peace settlement there. I can assure her that alongside the work on the humanitarian effort we are looking at what we can do with partners on the development effort, including in education.

Syria

Nadhim Zahawi: What recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Syria. [R]

Justine Greening: The humanitarian crisis in Syria has reached catastrophic proportions. Since the start of the conflict, over 100,000 people have been killed, 2.1 million have become refugees, and nearly 7 million people within Syria are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance.

Nadhim Zahawi: Let me declare an interest as a member of the International Rescue Committee’s policy and advocacy committee. Given that 60% of Syrian refugees are living outside refugee camps, what steps are the Department taking to ensure that there is adequate support for urban refugees and the communities that are supporting them?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that for some countries the total is possibly in excess of 70%. In Jordan, for every refugee who is in the Zaatari camp, there are four outside it. We are therefore working very closely with Governments such as Jordan’s through the World Bank trust fund that we helped to set up—we launched it when I was at the World Bank just a couple of weekends ago—to make sure that we have the investment in infrastructure and public services that the host communities need to be able to support not only their own day-to-day lives but those of the many people who have arrived in their midst.

Tom Clarke: In order to try to reduce the terrible humanitarian crisis not just in Syria but throughout the region, with the prospect of conflict in Lebanon, does the right hon. Lady agree that the non-governmental organisations are right to seek to work with local organisations, and will she encourage them in that objective?

Justine Greening: We are encouraging NGOs to work with grass-roots organisations, and they, too, understand that they need to do that. This is vital if we are to maintain the support of the host communities, who have been incredibly generous in accepting refugees. I should also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that one of the challenges is making sure that we can work with NGOs, which have the breadth and capacity to be able to work across the piece and across communities but are absolutely working on the ground with existing civil society organisations.

Malcolm Bruce: May I thank the Secretary of State for the comprehensive evidence session that she gave to the International Development Committee yesterday? I welcome the leadership role that the UK has played in committing these funds, but will she urge other countries such as those in Europe and the middle east also to step up to the plate and ensure that the UN appeal is fully funded and Britain is not left in front without followers?

Justine Greening: I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. Britain has done exactly the right thing in playing a leading role in the humanitarian response. It is absolutely right for the Syrian refugees, but right for us too, to try to do what we can to keep stability in the region. However, we cannot do that on our own, and it is now time, in the run-up to the next donor conference in January, for other countries in the international community to ask themselves what more they can do alongside the UK in making sure that the next UN donor appeal, unlike the last one, is fully funded.

Jonathan Edwards: Some 58,000 Syrians have sought refuge in Jordan since the onset of the civil war. Organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross are aiding those displaced individuals with the basics to live. What more can Governments do to help charities such as the Red Cross?

Justine Greening: We need to do a number of things. First, we need to make sure that the financing and resources are in place so that not just the life-saving work, but the broader work on educating the 1 million children who are now refugees can take place. As I have said, we also need to work with host Governments—such as the Jordanian Government, who have been incredibly generous—to make sure that they are well placed to be able to cope with this huge, unprecedented number of refugees.

Anne McIntosh: Mindful of the impact on Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, and mindful of the fact that this is an international humanitarian crisis, what international co-operation are we receiving with regard to the refugees in those countries?

Justine Greening: As I have said, it is deeply concerning that the United Nations donor appeal is only half funded. Having said that, as a result of the Prime Minister’s leadership, since the G20 we have managed to get an additional $1 billion of funding. The key
	test for us all will be whether the donor conference in January can be successful so that we can meet the needs of the UN agencies that are working so hard.

Jim Murphy: This refugee crisis is the greatest since that in Rwanda and the Secretary of State has our support in trying to get aid to those civilians, including 1 million refugee children. If the violence continues at its current ferocity, what is her Department’s assessment of the likely refugee numbers by the end of this year and of the capabilities of neighbouring nations to absorb them without destabilising their politics and economies?

Justine Greening: Some non-governmental organisations would assess that the number of refugees could reach the 3 million mark by next spring. That is deeply concerning and it is one of the reasons why, alongside all the humanitarian work we have done on the ground, the UK has brought together top donors and UN agencies to make sure that they can work together effectively as a single team on a single strategy for not just supporting refugees outside Syria, but, critically, reaching those in need in Syria.

Jim Murphy: We look forward to the Department’s assessment of possible refugee numbers by the end of the year. Refugees are not just scampering across borders; they are also clambering on to small boats in order to seek safety by travelling across the Mediterranean. The tiny dot of an island, Lampedusa, has become a checkpoint for people seeking refuge from north Africa and Syria. Sadly, 300 people have drowned on that journey. Does the Secretary of State accept that the international community has to do more to prevent those desperate people from dying in such dreadful circumstances as they flee civil war only to drown in the Mediterranean?

Justine Greening: What we have seen is shocking and it is one of the reasons why international development is so important. We need to make sure that we can work with developing countries so that they can provide people with opportunities, prosperity and a future so that they can pursue their lives with their families where they grow up. Surely that has to be the best thing and surely it is sensible to help Governments tackle instability and conflict on their own territory, rather than allow it to spread to ours.

Nepal (Elections)

Marcus Jones: What plans her Department has to assist with elections in Nepal in November 2013.

Alan Duncan: Our budget of £14 million for Nepal’s elections will cover items such as £5 million to the United Nations Development Programme for the electoral roll, £8 million to the Election Commission of Nepal for the administrative costs of the election itself, and a further £1 million to cover independent observers.

Marcus Jones: I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that so many years have passed since an election last took place in Nepal, is he confident that the assistance he is providing will contribute to a successful outcome?

Alan Duncan: I know that my hon. Friend has in his constituency a Nepali community to which he pays a great deal of attention. Nepal has faced a bit of a logjam for a number of years, in that it has needed elections to approve a constitution and a constitution to approve elections. We hope that the November elections will take place with full participation and no violence.

Nick Smith: What work is the Department doing to stop any violence between competing parties in the November elections?

Alan Duncan: The UK is at the forefront of engaging with politicians of all parties in Nepal. My right hon. Friends in the Foreign Office and we in the Department for International Development visit them regularly and have urged all of them to participate. When I visited in April, I was very robust in urging some of the smaller Maoist parties to participate when at the time they were minded not to do so.

Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative

Valerie Vaz: What contribution her Department is making to the implementation of the Government’s preventing sexual violence initiative.

Justine Greening: The UK will co-host a call-to-action event in November with Sweden, which will focus on protecting women and girls from all forms of violence in emergencies. That work builds directly on the G8 Foreign Ministers’ declaration on preventing sexual violence in conflict, which was led so ably by the Foreign Secretary.

Valerie Vaz: I am grateful for that response. In Burma, reports of rape and sexual violence against women by the army have increased. Given the level of aid that we send to Burma, will the Secretary of State encourage the Burmese Government to sign our declaration and ask her colleagues to raise the matter in Europe and at the United Nations?

Justine Greening: The hon. Lady makes a powerful point about what is happening in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi is in the country and I will be meeting her today. I will be sure to raise those issues with her. I am sure that she takes them as seriously as this House.

Cheryl Gillan: As a means to encouraging the wider implementation of the convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, the Council of Europe launched a campaign in February to encourage its member states to have their municipal and regional authorities sign a pact to stop sexual violence against children. Will the Secretary of State say whether she is aware of that campaign and what contribution her Department can make?

Justine Greening: I am not aware of that campaign. The Department sets a lot of store by the work that it does to protect children, whether in Syria or Democratic Republic of the Congo. Only today, I announced £2 million to take care of the Syrian children who are turning up
	in Iraq unaccompanied. I will write to my right hon. Friend to respond more fully on the campaign that she mentioned.

Gaza

Paul Blomfield: What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the levels of food, fuel and medical supplies entering Gaza each day.

Alan Duncan: Although the supply of food in Gaza is adequate, prices are rising fast. The level of fuel and medical supplies has dropped, exacerbating an already precarious humanitarian situation and threatening the basic needs of ordinary people in Gaza.

Paul Blomfield: The Minister has recognised in his reply that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is increasingly fragile. The impoverished Palestinian population is reliant on the tunnels for affordable goods. The tightening of restrictions by the Egyptian and Israeli authorities is resulting in shockingly high prices for fuel and basic commodities. With access to, and the affordability of, food becoming a huge problem, will the Government acknowledge that the blockade of Gaza is a violation of international humanitarian and human rights law and constitutes collective punishment?

Mr Speaker: There are extremely serious matters of life and death in Gaza. Let us hear the questions and the Minister’s answers.

Alan Duncan: I recognise exactly what the hon. Gentleman says. We would far rather see free movement and access for trade and economic activity in Gaza than an economy that is channelled through tunnels in a way that benefits Hamas. Israel’s plan to expand the capacity of the Allenby crossing between the west bank and Jordan is a welcome example of the sort of steps that can be taken to improve trade.

Tony Baldry: The truth is that the international community and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency will have to continue supporting thousands of people in Gaza and the west bank until a two-state solution is found or until Gaza and the west bank are incorporated into de jure Israel. Permanent occupation is a perpetual hell for thousands of people. When will the international community find a long-term solution for Gaza and the west bank?

Alan Duncan: I hope that the efforts that are under way will lead to exactly the kind of agreement that my hon. Friend is seeking. The efforts of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, in particular in working with the US Administration, will hopefully lead to a two-state solution and a long-lasting agreement that lead to peace and security between the two countries.

Ann McKechin: The Minister will be aware that the price of fuel in Gaza has almost doubled in recent weeks. What steps is his Department taking to assist small businesses in Gaza, particularly fishermen, who have been hit hard by that increase?

Alan Duncan: The hon. Lady makes a very fair point. The amount of fuel that enters Gaza via the tunnels has halved from about 1 million litres a day in June to about 500,000 litres this month. The Gaza power plant is operating at half its capacity, triggering electricity blackouts of up to 12 hours a day, exacerbating the already difficult economic and humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Topical Questions

John Mann: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Justine Greening: During the past month I have attended the UN General Assembly, meetings at the World Bank and I have put in place a new £30 million “Lost Generation” initiative to provide protection, counselling and basic educational supplies to children affected by the Syrian crisis. I have announced a £1 billion commitment to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the Department is committed to transparency, results and value for money. I am proud that in procurement in DFID, despite competition from the public and private sectors, my departmental procurement team recently won the annual award for best international procurement from the Chartered Institute for Procurement and Supply.

John Mann: The Batwa, who were evicted from the forests to allow tourists to trek gorillas, are the most socially excluded group in east Africa. Will the Secretary of State look at her programmes to ensure that they too do not exclude the Batwa?

Justine Greening: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look into the specific point he raises. Human rights run through all DFID programmes, and when dealing with Governments we have partnership principles that also include human rights.

Andrew Jones: What is my right hon. Friend’s Department doing to promote the business skills of developing countries so that they can promote their own economies?

Justine Greening: I know that my hon. Friend was involved in excellent work on business mentoring in Burundi over the summer, and last week I met the Institute of Chartered Accountants—of which I am a fellow—to discuss accounting and auditing standards in the developing world. I hope the UK’s excellent professional services will play a role in driving standards and skills in the developing world over the coming months and years.

Sheila Gilmore: What progress has been made since the G8 in curbing illicit financial flows from developing countries by revealing more information about the beneficial ownership of companies?

Justine Greening: I am pleased the hon. Lady raises that issue. This country played a leading role in using the G8 to raise the issue of illicit flows, and ensure transparency alongside our efforts on tax and trade. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is
	now consulting on beneficial ownership, which the hon. Lady referred to, and that is a key route through which we can help developing countries ensure they get the tax takes they are due.

Mary Macleod: When I visited India two weeks ago with my local gurdwara from Hounslow, I had a useful discussion in the Punjab with ActionAid and other organisations about female feticide, which I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees is a disgrace to humanity. What can she do through her Department to improve the way that women are valued, so that they are protected worldwide?

Justine Greening: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Female feticide is shocking, and I pay tribute to organisations such as ActionAid, and others that work and campaign on that issue. In too many parts of the world, women are treated as chattels or assets and are bought and sold, often through early forced marriage or trafficking. The lack of basic human rights for women underpins much of what my Department works on.

Paul Flynn: Many billions of pounds of taxpayers money have rightly been spent investing in schools and community centres in Afghanistan. What proportion does the right hon. Lady believe will remain open after the departure of our troops next year?

Justine Greening: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that a huge amount of work through the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund has gone into education and building schools, including in Helmand. Given the work that is taking place in the run-up to the troop draw-down and beyond, I hope not only that those schools will continue, but that more schools will join them and extend education to more Afghan children.

Andrew Stunell: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what progress has been made since the G8 on cutting illicit financial flows from developing countries, and on setting up a public register of the beneficial ownership of those companies?

Justine Greening: I reiterate that a consultation on beneficial ownership is under way. Since taking up this role I have increased the amount of funding that my Department gives to the Met police to track down and prosecute those involved in illicit illegal flows, and they are doing an excellent job.

Jim Cunningham: Will the Secretary of State say what discussions she has had with the Israeli Government about the price of petrol for the Palestinians?

Alan Duncan: The Department is in regular discussions with the Israeli Government, and as mentioned earlier, we are particularly concerned about the limitation that exists on fuel in Gaza. We fully understand that those pressures exist, and we make representations whenever we can.

Malcolm Bruce: What steps is the Department taking to ensure that ethnic conflict in Burma is brought to an end? Otherwise, it threatens both the stability and the development prospects of that country.

Justine Greening: The Department is working hand in hand with the Foreign Office to play its role in improving governance and accountability, not only at regional and governmental level, but at community level, where, clearly, so many of the root causes of that situation lie.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Julian Brazier: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 October.

David Cameron: I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Lance Corporal James Brynin of 14 Signal Regiment, who died in Afghanistan. It is clear from the tributes that he was a highly talented and professional soldier. Our thoughts are with his family, his friends and his colleagues at this very difficult time. He has made the ultimate sacrifice, and we must never forget him.
	On a happier note, I am sure the House will join me in celebrating the christening of baby Prince George later today.
	This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and, in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Julian Brazier: I join my right hon. Friend in his tribute to Lance Corporal Brynin. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and comrades in 14 Signal Regiment. I also join the Prime Minister in his applause for the christening of Prince George this morning.
	Does my right hon. Friend believe it is a good time for an apology from those regional branches of the Police Federation who so traduced our right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), and from the Leader of the Opposition?

David Cameron: Let me start by saying on behalf of all hon. Members that we should put on record what an incredible job the police do on our behalf every day. I see that at very close hand, and the Leader of the Opposition and I saw it at the police bravery awards last week. However, as I said last week, my right hon. Friend the former Chief Whip gave a full explanation of what happened. The police in the meeting said that he gave no explanation. It is now clear, reading the Independent Police Complaints Commission report, that the police need to make an apology. The officers concerned and the chief constables are coming to the House today. I hope they will give a full account and a proper apology to the Home Affairs Committee. It is a moment for all hon. Members to consider what we said at the time. I hope the Leader of the Opposition does the same.

Edward Miliband: I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Lance Corporal James Brynin of 14 Signal Regiment, who died on his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. He was a brave, professional soldier. I send our deepest condolences to his family and friends.
	I also join the Prime Minister in celebrating the christening of Prince George later today and send best wishes to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
	The Prime Minister has said that anyone who wanted to intervene directly in energy markets was living in “a Marxist universe”. Can he tell the House how he feels now that the red peril has claimed Sir John Major?

David Cameron: We are intervening—[Interruption.] I am not surprised the right hon. Gentleman wants to quote the last Conservative Prime Minister and forget the mess the people in between made of our country. Let me be absolutely clear that I believe in intervening in the energy market. That is why we are legislating to put customers on the lowest tariff. John Major is absolutely right that bills in this country have reached a completely unacceptable level. We need to take action on that. We need to help people to pay their bills, and we also need to help to get bills down. This is where we need a frank conversation about what is putting bills up. The Government are prepared to have that conversation; the Leader of the Opposition is employed in cynical ploys and gimmicks.

Edward Miliband: Of course, John Major was a Conservative Prime Minister who won a majority, unlike this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said something rather interesting. He obviously now agrees with Sir John Major that the energy price increases are unacceptable. If we agree that they are unacceptable, the question is: what are we going to do about it? The former Prime Minister said that,
	“given the scale of those profits”,
	we should “recoup that money”. He wants to do it through a windfall tax; I say we need a price freeze. What does the Prime Minister want to do to “recoup that money” for the consumer?

David Cameron: Let me answer that question directly. We need to roll back some of the green regulations and charges that are putting up bills. We all know who put them in place. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The House is very over-excited. I want to hear the answers. Let us hear the Prime Minister.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman talks about John Major winning an election, and he is right. He beat a weak and incredible Labour leader. Is that not rather familiar? The first thing that John Major said is that Labour’s policy is unworkable, and he is absolutely right. What we need to do is recognise that there are four bits to an energy bill: the wholesale prices, which are beyond our control; the costs of transmission and the grid, which are difficult to change; the profits of the energy companies; and the green regulations. It is those last two that we need to get to grips with. So I can tell the House today that we will be having a proper competition test carried out over the next year to get to the bottom of whether this market can be more competitive. I want more companies, I want better regulation and I want
	better deals for consumers, but yes, we also need to roll back the green charges that the right hon. Gentleman put in place as Energy Secretary.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister really is changing his policy every day of the week. It is absolutely extraordinary. His Energy Secretary, who is in his place, says this has nothing to do with green taxes, and 60% of green taxes were introduced by him. Who is the man who said, “Vote blue to go green?” It was the Prime Minister. I will tell him what is weak: not standing up to the energy companies. That is this Prime Minister all over.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the big six energy companies. Who created the big six energy companies? When Labour came to power there were 17 companies in the market, now there are just six. I can help Opposition Members, because I have the briefing that Back-Bench Labour MPs have been given about their own energy policy. In case they have not read the briefing, they might want to hear it. Question 7:
	“what would stop the energy companies just increasing their prices beforehand?”
	Absolutely no answer. Question 6. [Interruption.] No, let me share their briefing with them. Question 6:
	“How will you stop companies just increasing their prices once the freeze ends?”
	Here we have the great Labour answer:
	“the public would take a dim view”.
	A dim view—how incredibly brave. Let us have question 9, because this says it all. This is what Labour’s briefing says:
	“Ed Miliband was Energy Secretary in the last government - isn’t he to blame for rising bills?”
	We all know the answer: yes, he is.

Edward Miliband: I will tell the Prime Minister what happened. When I was Energy Secretary, energy bills went down by £100. Since he became Prime Minister, they have gone up by £300. Let us clarify where we are. The Prime Minister says these price rises are unacceptable. He says he wants to act. He is the Prime Minister—I know he can sometimes forget that, but, heaven help us, he is the Prime Minister, so he can act. I have a suggestion: he should implement Labour’s price freeze. The Energy Bill is going through the other place. We can amend it and bring in the price freeze right now—two parties working together in the national interest. Let us do that—

David Cameron: rose—

Edward Miliband: I think the right hon. Gentleman has been following his own advice too much: wearing too many woolly jumpers and getting overheated. Let us do it—we can bring the price freeze right now.

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well it is not a price freeze; it is a price con. He admitted it was a price con the very next day, because he could not control global gas prices. The truth is that prices would go up beforehand, he would not keep his promise and prices would go up afterwards. It is a cynical ploy from the Energy Secretary who wrecked the energy market in the first place.

Edward Miliband: I will tell the Prime Minister what is a con: telling people last week that the answer was to switch suppliers and that that would solve the broken energy market. What does he say to someone who took his advice last week to switch from British Gas, only to discover that npower was raising its prices by 10%?

David Cameron: It is worth people looking at switches—they can save up to £250 if they switch—but we want a more competitive energy market. The right hon. Gentleman left us a market with just six players, and we have already seen seven new energy companies enter the market. We need an annual audit of competition to make this market more competitive—something he never did in office—and to roll back the costs imposed on people’s energy bills, part of which he was responsible for. One of the first acts of the Government was to take away the £179 that he was going to put on to energy bills through his renewable heat initiative. He put bills up and is trying to con the public; we will deliver for hard-working people.

Edward Miliband: John Major said what we all know. We have a Prime Minister who stands up for the energy companies, not hard-pressed families. Many people face a choice this winter between heating and eating. These are the ordinary people of this country whom this Prime Minister will never meet and whose lives they will never understand.

David Cameron: The difference is: John Major is a good man; the right hon. Gentleman is acting like a conman. That is what we are seeing. He is promising something he knows he cannot deliver. He knows he cannot deliver it because he never delivered it when he was in office.

Andrew Stephenson: In the town of Colne, where I live, unemployment is down and small businesses are flourishing, but serious traffic congestion is holding back the economic growth of the area. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the start of a six-week consultation on a Colne bypass that would address this problem and boost job creation in Pendle and east Lancashire?

David Cameron: I very much welcome what my hon. Friend says. He is absolutely right about the need to build bypasses and roads in our country, which is why we are spending £3 billion over the Parliament on major upgrades. I welcome the consultation on the Colne bypass. As he says, it comes at the same time as very good news on unemployment and employment, with 1 million more people in work in our country.

William McCrea: On this day 20 years ago, the Provisional IRA brutally murdered innocent men, women and children on the Shankill road in Belfast. Will the Prime Minister join me and my right. hon. and hon. Friends in ensuring that no one in a civilised society will ever equate innocent victims with guilty murderers?

David Cameron: I join the hon. Gentleman in commemorating the appalling act and loss of life that day. We all remember it. Of course, no one should ever glorify, in any way, terrorism or those who take part in
	terrorism, but he and I know that everyone in Northern Ireland has to try to come together to talk about a shared future and to try to leave the past behind.

Alan Reid: Rural post offices are vital, but they need more government work to survive. They must continue to pay pensions and benefits and are ideally placed to handle universal credit applications, provide banking and identity check facilities and act as a front office for government. Will the Prime Minister encourage all his Ministers to give more government work to post offices?

David Cameron: We all want to see the post office network survive and thrive. Unlike the last Government, who saw nearly a third of the rural post office network close, we have committed that no post office will close in this Parliament. I absolutely hear what my hon. Friend says. The current arrangements for collecting pensions and benefits at post offices will remain in place at least until 2015, and the Department for Work and Pensions and the Post Office are discussing an extension to 2017.

Jim Dobbin: A total of 1.5 million people in the UK are addicted to the benzoates diazepam and “Z drugs”. I know of one individual who has been on those products for more than 45 years—a total life ruined. They are not drug misusers; they are victims of the system of repeat prescriptions. Will the Prime Minister advise the Department of Health to give some guidance to the clinical commissioning groups to introduce withdrawal programmes in line with the advice from Professor Heather Ashton of Newcastle university, who is the expert in this field, to give these people back their lives?

David Cameron: First, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has campaigned strongly on this issue over many years. I join him in paying tribute to Professor Ashton, whom I know has considerable expertise in this area. He is right to say that this is a terrible affliction; these people are not drug addicts but they have become hooked on repeat prescriptions of tranquillisers. The Minister for public health is very happy to discuss this issue with him and, as he says, make sure that the relevant guidance can be issued.

Brian Binley: I know that the Prime Minister is very well aware of the concerns that many of our people have about rising energy prices. Will he therefore act to reduce the effect of Mr Huhne’s unfortunate legacy by cutting the carbon reduction policy, elongating the targets and relieving the burden on both consumer and business man?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes a good point; as I say, this is why we have to have an honest discussion about this, because the fact is that on our energy bills is £112 of green taxes and green regulations. We need to work out not only what is necessary to encourage renewable energy and what is necessary to go on winning overseas investment into the UK, but how we can bear down on people’s bills. It simply is the politics of the conman to pretend that you can freeze prices when you are not in control of global energy prices. The proper approach is to look at what is driving up bills and deal with it. [Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. I let it go the first time, but the word “conman” is, frankly, unparliamentary; the Prime Minister is a man of great versatility in the use of language and it is a bit below the level. We will leave it there.

Seema Malhotra: Yesterday, The Independent reported the Government’s failure to close the quoted Eurobond tax loophole, which could be losing the Exchequer £500 million a year. Has the Prime Minister ever been lobbied on the loophole? Will he now pledge to close it immediately?

David Cameron: To my memory, I have never been lobbied on this particular issue. I looked at it this morning. The Treasury has listened very carefully to the arguments and has made the decisions for the reasons that the hon. Lady knows.

Richard Benyon: More than 300,000 new businesses have been registered in the United Kingdom over the past three years—that is a record figure. The key priority in supporting those businesses over the difficult first few years of trading is to make sure that we bear down on regulation. Much has been done through the red tape challenge, one-in, one-out and other measures. What more can the Government do to support these risk-takers at this difficult time?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The news out today is that we now have the largest number of companies we have ever had in our country, and over the past three years we have seen 400,000 extra companies established. What we have to do is help them in every way we can. The most powerful thing we are doing is cutting the national insurance that they will have to pay by £2,000, starting next year. That will be a real boost to small businesses. On the red tape they are currently throttled with, we are dealing with that at every level, including at the European Council coming up this week, where I have organised a meeting for our businesses to explain their proposals for cutting red tape to fellow European leaders from Finland, Italy, Germany and elsewhere. It is an agenda right across the board to help small businesses grow our economy.

Meg Hillier: New research shows that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government are trapping low-earning aspirant parents on benefits. His benefit cap is hitting vulnerable children, stopping parents working and costing the taxpayer—is it not time for a rethink?

David Cameron: We know that the Labour party is against the benefit cap. It wants unlimited benefits for families. It is no longer the Labour party; it is the welfare party. That is very clear from the questions Labour Members ask. We think it is right to cap benefits so that no family can earn more out of work than they would earn in work. The early evidence is showing that this is encouraging people to look for work. For a party that believes in hard-working people, that is good news. Presumably for the welfare party it is bad news.

Roger Williams: The Prime Minister will be aware of the business model of Welsh Water Dwr Cymru, which is a not-for-profit
	company that is responsible to its consumers rather than to shareholders. Does he agree that such companies would introduce real competition in the energy supply sector?

David Cameron: We want more competition in the energy sector, whether it comes from private businesses, from co-operative businesses or, as the hon. Gentleman says, from charitable enterprises. We want an open energy market, but the fact is that we were left with the big six by the party opposite. We were also left an Ofgem in which the Leader of the Opposition had appointed five of the nine people. The reason that the energy market is not working properly lies largely at his door.

Yvonne Fovargue: Wigan and Leigh Housing estimates that it will take approximately seven years to rehouse the 1,400 tenants who wish to downsize because they cannot afford to pay the bedroom tax. Would the Prime Minister advise those tenants to move to private rented accommodation, thereby increasing the housing benefit bill, or should they try to save money by turning off the heating and wearing a jumper?

David Cameron: What is fair about removing the spare room subsidy is that it makes the situation fair between private rented accommodation and council sector rented accommodation. It is that sort of fairness that we want to see in our country. The Labour party has opposed every single welfare reduction that we have proposed; it would have to find £85 billion to fund its opposition to every single thing that we have done to help this country get back on track.

Crispin Blunt: The positive outlook for Osborne Construction in my constituency this year, with its increased turnover and a strongly increased forward order book, is mirrored in the real economy all over the country. Will the Prime Minister undertake not to be diverted from the long, hard slog of righting the public finances and reducing the burdens on business, so that plan A can continue to enable businesses in my constituency—Osborne and all the others—to put our economy right for the long term?

David Cameron: I am very glad to hear that Osborne Construction is working in my hon. Friend’s constituency, just as it is around the rest of the country. That is very worth while. I shall take this opportunity to pay tribute to him, as a constituency MP, for standing up for people and businesses in Reigate and for knowing that what Reigate needs is what the country needs, which is to stand up for hard-working people and to get more businesses, more jobs and more investment turning our country around.

Tom Watson: Fixed-odds betting machines allow the user to stake £100 every 20 seconds for up to 13 hours a day. They have transformed the local bookies from places where people went for a flutter on the horses into high street digital casinos. Will the Prime Minister consider banning these addictive machines, as has recently happened in Ireland?

David Cameron: This is an issue on which I have been repeatedly lobbied by people across the House and more broadly—[Interruption.] I do think that it is worth having a proper look at the issue to see what we can do. Yes, we want to ensure that bookmakers are not over-regulated, but we also want a fair and decent approach that prevents problem gambling.

Nadine Dorries: In Mid Bedfordshire last year, 130 parents, teachers and staff were very disappointed when their free school application failed. That application was managed by the Barnfield Federation, which is now under investigation by the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Will the Prime Minister please use his good offices to ensure that the failed free school application in Mid Bedfordshire is incorporated into that inquiry?

David Cameron: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her suggestion. Obviously, we need a proper policy of ensuring that proposals for free schools are ready to go ahead before they go ahead. It is worth making the point that two thirds of the free schools in our country have been judged to be good or outstanding, which is a higher proportion than for schools in the state sector. It is therefore worth not only continuing with this policy but putting rocket boosters on it so that we see many more free schools in our country.

Liverpool City Region (Ministerial Visit)

George Howarth: When he next plans to visit the Liverpool city region.

David Cameron: I visited Liverpool earlier this year to launch the city’s international festival for business 2014. While there, I discussed with mayor Joe Anderson the prospects for the city in overseas investment and the importance of the international festival. I also met Hillsborough families, and I am sure I will visit the city again soon.

George Howarth: I am grateful for that answer. Does the Prime Minister accept that Government support to local government should be related to need? If so, how does he explain the fact that households in my region have lost £40 over the last two years, whereas households in his constituency have gained £6?

David Cameron: Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the figures. We need to look at spending power per dwelling, which is the combination of grant plus council tax. In the right hon. Gentleman’s area, the spending per dwelling is £3,122 whereas it is £1,872 in West Oxfordshire. I fully accept that the need is much greater in Knowsley than it is in West Oxfordshire, but I would argue that that provides a relatively fair balance between the two.

Engagements

Simon Wright: Following decades of underinvestment and hollow promises from previous Governments, the coalition’s early decision fully to dual the A11 is driving investor confidence in Norwich and East Anglia. May I urge
	the Prime Minister to continue to look east, as a powerhouse for economic growth, and to back the opportunities available for investment in the great eastern main line?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stand up for Norwich and for Norwich’s economy. The £100 million we are investing in the A11 is an important part of that. It will be completed in 2014, and it will cut congestion on the route between Cambridge and Norwich. For once, I have said something that the shadow Chancellor agrees with, because I know that he wants to go and watch the Canaries. Now we will be able to get him there a little bit quicker. There is no end to my munificence in trying to help the shadow Chancellor.

Paul Goggins: Two weeks ago, the head of the Security Service warned about the extent of Islamist extremism. This week, two individuals have been charged with serious terrorist offences. What is the Prime Minister going to do in January when, as a result of his Government’s legislation, some of those whom the Home Secretary has judged to pose the greatest threat to our security are released from the provisions of their terrorism prevention and investigation measures?

David Cameron: We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force—it met again yesterday—setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe.

Julian Smith: Following the reckless handling by The Guardianof the Snowden leaks, will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the women and men of our intelligence services, who have no voice but who do so much to keep this country safe?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is one of the greatest privileges of my job to work with our intelligence and security services and to meet some of the people who work for them. He is right to say that they do not get thanked enough publicly because of the job they do, but I am absolutely convinced that the work that GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 do on behalf of our country helps to keep us safe. We have seen that again this week with the arrests that have taken place. Once again, this came from brilliant policing work and brilliant intelligence work, helping to keep our country safe. We cannot praise these people too highly.

Andy Sawford: The realities of work for millions of people—low pay, short time, zero hours, agency exploitation—were exposed on Channel 4’s “Dispatches” this week. Did the Prime Minister see it? If not, will he use catch-up, so that he can watch it and then wake up to real life in Britain?

David Cameron: Everyone in our country wants to see living standards increase, more people in work and for people to keep more take-home pay. That is why we have cut taxes for the typical working person—by £705 if we look at what will be in place next year. Let me make a point about zero-hours contracts. The proportion of people in employment on zero hours in 2012 was the same as it was in the year 2000. The number of people on zero hours increased by 75% between 2004 and 2009—when that lot were in government.

Henry Smith: Businesses in Crawley are creating hundreds of jobs, and as a result unemployment fell to 2.7% last month. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way to raise living standards is to increase and continue the policies of economic growth rather than the Labour party’s discredited policies of debt?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we see in our country is business confidence rising and consumer confidence rising. Our exports are increasing, construction and manufacturing are up, and we are seeing a good growth in employment: there are a million more people in work in our country than when we came to office. Of course we want to do more to help people to feel better off by reducing their taxes, which is exactly what we are doing. All that would be put at risk if we gave up on reducing the deficit and having responsible economic policies. The Labour party would give us a double whammy of higher mortgage rates and higher taxes, and that is just what Britain’s hard-working families do not need.

Diana Johnson: Does the Prime Minister think it fair that a sacked pregnant woman will now have to pay £1,200 to take a maternity discrimination case to an employment tribunal?

David Cameron: It is very important for people to have access to employment tribunals, and they do under this Government. One thing that we have done is ensure
	that people do not earn such rights until they have worked for a business for two years, and I think that that is the right approach.

Andrew Griffiths: Thanks to the Chancellor’s economic policies, unemployment in Burton and Uttoxeter fell by 10% last month, and is now at its lowest since September 2008. Many of the new jobs were created in small businesses which now have the confidence to invest. Will the Prime Minister commit himself to supporting those small businesses, to help us to “grow” the economy?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is right. Unemployment in the west midlands fell by 14,000 during this quarter. However, my hon. Friend does not just talk about helping people back into jobs; he has also set up a job fair in his constituency, which has done a huge amount to bring businesses large and small together with those who want jobs. That is the sort of social action in which Conservatives believe: not just talking, but helping.

Kevin Barron: I wrote to the Prime Minister on 8 May about the possible involvement of Lynton Crosby in public health matters. I raised his failure to reply on 19 June at Prime Minister’s Question Time, and again during the summer Adjournment debate on 18 July. I have served under four previous Prime Ministers who replied to Members’ letters—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. This question will be heard with some courtesy, which is what I expect in the case of all questions. That is very simple and very straightforward.

Kevin Barron: I have served under four previous Prime Ministers who replied to Members’ letters. Why will this Prime Minister not do so?

David Cameron: I will certainly reply to the right hon. Gentleman’s letter, but let me give him a reply right now. Public health responsibility is a matter for the Department of Health. Lynton Crosby’s job is the destruction of the Labour party, and he is doing a pretty good one.

Grangemouth Refinery

Caroline Flint: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will make a statement on the Government’s contingency planning in the light of the closure of the Grangemouth refinery.

Edward Davey: I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. Let me inform the House of the latest situation in respect of the disruption at the Grangemouth refinery and petrochemicals complex in Scotland.
	I recognise the concern of many Members, and, in particular, the active involvement of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). The Government have been in regular contact with both sides throughout the dispute, and we continue to talk to both sides. We are working very closely with the Scottish Government, and I spoke to John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, again this morning.
	This morning INEOS made a statement confirming the decision of its shareholders to place the Grangemouth petrochemicals plant in liquidation, which puts 800 jobs at risk. The Government are saddened by the move, particularly because of the uncertainty that it will bring for the work force and all those who indirectly owe their livelihoods to the Grangemouth plant. The Government do not underestimate the plant’s importance to both the local community and the Scottish economy.
	While respecting INEOS’s right to make this decision, it is regrettable that both parties have not managed to negotiate a fair and equitable settlement that delivers a viable business model for the plant. Even at this late stage, the Government urge them to continue dialogue, and we will offer all possible help and support with that. We want the petrochemicals plant to stay open if at all possible but, should redundancies be made, support will be available from Partnership Action for Continuing Employment, which includes the Scottish Government, Skills Development Scotland, Business Gateway and Jobcentre Plus.
	INEOS’s statement this morning made it clear that the situation regarding the refinery is different from that of the petrochemicals plant. The owners of the refinery, INEOS and PetroChina, have announced their intention to keep their refinery open and their wish to restart full operations as soon as possible. The Government stand ready to help with discussions between the management and the union to ensure that that can happen, and I am speaking to both parties again today.
	Throughout the disruption, fuel supplies continue to be delivered as usual. Moreover, my Department has been working closely with industry and the Scottish Government to put robust contingency plans in place to ensure that supplies of road fuels, aviation fuels and heating oils will continue to be available to Scottish consumers and to fuel the Scottish economy.
	The Secretary of State for Scotland and I will be giving a briefing at 4.15 pm today in Dover house for MPs with Scottish constituencies and any other interested hon. and right hon. Members who wish to discuss the situation in more detail after these exchanges.

Caroline Flint: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks and the support, through Jobcentre Plus or anyone else, for those who have lost their jobs so that we do whatever we can to help the workers and their families at this difficult time.
	The closure of the petrochemical plant at Grangemouth means that the 800 people employed there, and more who are employed as subcontractors, will lose their jobs. The INEOS chairman, Jim Ratcliffe, said at the weekend that if the petrochemical plant closed, it was likely that the refinery would go too. John Swinney, the Scottish Finance Minister, claimed yesterday that he was in discussions with potential buyers for Grangemouth. Is the Secretary of State aware of those discussions and what involvement have he or his Ministers had?
	The Unite union committed not to strike, with no preconditions, while negotiations over pay and conditions were undertaken. PetroChina, the 50% shareholder in INEOS’s refinery business, made a statement calling for all parties to get back around the table and reach a consensus but today, sadly, rather than coming back to the negotiating table, INEOS has announced that it will close the—profitable—petrochemical plant. Sadly, there were reports on the BBC this morning that management delivered the news with smiles on their faces. Does the Secretary of State agree that INEOS should have got around the table to negotiate, rather than delivering ultimatums?
	In its July report “UK oil refining”, the Energy and Climate Change Committee found a mismatch between refinery supply of petroleum and demand, but we are still waiting for the Government to respond. Can the Secretary of State be confident that the Grangemouth refinery will stay open? Will he tell us more about the contingency plans that are in place to secure fuel supplies for Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England? Given the current shutdown and uncertainty over the closure of Grangemouth, will he reassure us that he will commit to undertake the review of UK refining capacity that the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) promised in June 2012 in response to the closure of the Coryton refinery?

Edward Davey: I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. Her first was about the recent statement by the Finance Secretary in the Scottish Government that they were looking for potential buyers. I have spoken to Mr Swinney about that, and we in the Westminster Government certainly stand ready to assist. It is a devolved responsibility, but my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will be making all efforts, through Departments and UK Trade & Investment, to assist should we need a buyer for the petrochemicals plant.
	The right hon. Lady asked whether INEOS should have got around the table. Throughout the dispute, I have personally been asking both sides to get around the table. At one stage, INEOS was not prepared to go to ACAS. I personally spoke to INEOS and persuaded it to go to ACAS, which it then did, and I regret that those ACAS talks were not successful at avoiding the situation that we have arrived at today.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the contingency plans that we put in place. We have been working for a significant time to ensure that there were contingency plans, should the disruption become any worse. As she
	knows, the refinery is currently closed down, but fuel is coming through the refinery—refined fuel is being loaded from ships into the plant and then on to racks to go into tankers. That is a part of our contingency plans, but they are much more detailed and granular than that. They go into minute detail about how we would ensure that fuel—heating oil, road fuel and aviation fuel—is supplied throughout Scotland, which is why I can say confidently that the people of Scotland may be reassured that we will keep fuel going through that economy.
	Finally, the right hon. Lady asked about the review of refineries, and we expect to have that—probably—by the end of the year. It is very detailed and has been under way for some time. She will understand that there has been a big switch in the way in which motorists use fuel—away from petrol to diesel—but most refineries in the UK produce petrol rather than diesel. We import a huge amount of diesel, and that is one of a number of issues being considered in that review.

Malcolm Bruce: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The dispute has been characterised by intransigence on both sides and it is regrettable that it has resulted in this decision. I support the fact that the Governments who have jurisdiction in Scotland—the Scottish Government and the UK Government—are working together to ensure that we get a solution. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give about any guarantees that we can secure for the future of the Scottish and the UK economies, which are threatened by the present situation, and not least for the future of North sea oil production?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. The Scottish Government and the Westminster Government have been working extremely closely and I am grateful for such work. The partnership has been successful and constructive, and we will need to continue to work together in the days and weeks ahead for the people of Scotland—and, indeed, for the people of the UK, because as he suggested, this has UK-wide implications. Beyond that, I remind the House that Her Majesty’s Treasury has been working with INEOS to look at potential infrastructure guarantees, should INEOS make a decision to invest in the petrochemicals plant. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has developed innovative infrastructure guarantees and we stand ready to assist with that. I know that the Scottish Government have plans to assist as well.

Michael Connarty: I thank the Secretary of State for recognising that I have kept the Government and Opposition Front Benchers, and also the Scottish National party, informed of developments. There is common purpose in this.
	On 14 October, I sat with Calum MacLean as he told me about the bright future that was available to Grangemouth Petrochemicals—the chemicals side—if it could go across the bridge to a point where it would be breaking even and then making money in large amounts, with ethane coming from America after 2022. It is unfortunate that there seems to have been an ultimatum approach, rather than a negotiation approach. There is still time for all parties—the Opposition, the
	Government and the Scottish Government—to ask the company to rewind the tape, get back to negotiations and think of the bright future that can be shared with the community after negotiations.
	I heard the general secretary of Unite in Scotland saying this morning that the entire survival plan and all the terms and conditions of employment are on the table for negotiation, so there is still time to save the plant, which supplies 30% of the ethylene to the UK down the pipeline. It not just refines 300 barrels of oil a day for Scotland, the north of England and Ireland, but feeds the chemical industry of the whole of the UK.

Edward Davey: I once again pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has been representing his constituents with his usual skill. I agree with much of what he says but, as the Government must look at all potential scenarios, we have to look at the potential scenario of liquidation, as announced by INEOS today. We very much regret that, but we have to plan for all potential outcomes. The hon. Gentleman is right that a better outcome would be to get both sides around the table so that we can get agreement on a way forward and secure the investment that we wish to see. We want to see the petrochemicals plant staying open and developing.

David Mowat: The impact of Grangemouth closing is far in excess of the 800 jobs because of the issues regarding ethylene and refining capacity throughout the country. Will the Secretary of State assure us that, in the same way that European countries go to the nth degree to prevent their refineries from closing even though there is overcapacity in Europe, he will do the same in this country?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right to say that the ramifications, severe though they are for the 800 people, their families and the communities in which they live, go wider than that, which is one of the many reasons why I and my colleagues have been working so hard to secure a resolution that sees the investment and sees the plant staying open. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), we are very much focused on looking for the right approach to maintain the refinery capacity that the UK needs. We have already seen—I think it was two years ago—a refinery at Teesside closing, and recently there was the situation at Coryton. Refineries in the UK and throughout Europe are under severe pressure; their margins are very narrow and there are serious economic issues. I have referred to one of the reasons for that—the switch from petrol to diesel—but there are others as well. We need to ensure that our response is strategic and based on evidence, and that it will have the results that we need. We do need a successful refining industry in the UK and that is the purpose of our work.

Alistair Darling: I think that everyone in the House recognises the importance of the Grangemouth plant—not just for Grangemouth, but because, if we lose it, there will be huge hole in the Scottish economy and the loss of the refining capacity would have a serious implication for the UK. Does the Secretary of State agree that two things are necessary? First, the Government and the Scottish Government should do everything that they can to try to persuade the employers to start negotiating again. It would be a
	tragedy if we were to lose the plant as a result of it falling victim to rhetoric that looks more like the 1970s than the industrial relations we would expect today. Secondly, if that is not successful and INEOS is determined to walk away, what steps will the Government and the Scottish Government take together to try to find an alternative? Frankly, losing such a facility would be a major loss and, once lost, we would never get it back again.

Edward Davey: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is critical that we do everything possible to keep the petrochemicals plant and the refinery working. I am clear that, working with the Scottish Government, we will do everything that we can to get negotiations going again. I understand from INEOS this morning that it will be talking to Unite today, not just to tell it about the shareholders’ decision, but to discuss the issue in more detail. Let us see what comes from those talks. Should they not be successful, and should INEOS decide to walk away, of course we will be very much involved in trying to find a future. The Scottish Government have a key role for the petrochemicals plant in particular, and we will work with them on that. A lot will depend on the process that the INEOS management at the petrochemicals plant decides to follow. It says that it will talk to liquidators, but it has other options, so we will be in close contact with it as it develops those options. There may be alternatives with INEOS’s involvement. Whatever happens, we will be active in seeking an acceptable solution for the people involved and the Scottish economy.

Andrew Selous: The loss of any jobs is, of course, a real tragedy for those concerned and their families. May I welcome what the Secretary of State says about a review of refining capacity, especially with regard to diesel? My understanding is that much of the diesel used in the UK is refined in Russia, which obviously adds to costs for motorists, who have been under a lot of pressure recently.

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we decided to undertake the review of refinery capacity, we did so in the light of a huge amount of evidence that we needed to ensure that our economy was not vulnerable, yet with the developments in the refining industry, there was a danger that it would become increasingly so. He is right that we are importing a lot of refined fuel at the moment, and we need to ensure, as an energy security issue, that we know where our supplies of transport fuel are coming from.

Sheila Gilmore: Does the Secretary of State not agree that this situation shows the importance of good, mature industrial relations? My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) suggested that it was reminiscent of the 1970s, but I suggest that lockout, threats and ultimatums are more reminiscent of the 1870s. Any new buyer must have a better industrial relations policy, and the Government must encourage that and not undermine it.

Edward Davey: I understand the hon. Lady’s concern, and indeed anger, and am sure that in that regard she speaks for many local people. As the Government working with the Scottish Government, we have been, and must remain, balanced in our approach, because our job is to
	try to get both sides to negotiate. That is the most effective role we can play, so we will continue to do that in as balanced a way as we can.

Jackie Doyle-Price: The competitive challenges facing the refining market have been well established for a number of years and led to the closure of Petroplus in Coryton last year. In view of the competitive challenge, is it not regrettable that the local branch of Unite was more interested in manipulating the Labour party in Falkirk than in representing the interests of its members?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady asks me to comment on an issue, the details of which I am not privy to. There is a disciplinary investigation under way, which INEOS has been leading. I understand that it might publish, or at least share with Unite and the convenor involved, the results of its investigation later this week, but I do not think that it is for me to comment on that.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the Secretary of State for many of the answers he has given so far, but ask him to reiterate the following three important points: it is vital that the refinery is reactivated, that both Governments continue to take steps to mitigate even the threat of job losses, and that there is continued joint working between both Governments to keep the plant open and to search for a new buyer.

Edward Davey: I can say yes to all three points. It is vital that the refinery gets going again, as I said in my initial remarks. We must do everything we can to prevent job losses. I am afraid that it is not in our power to prevent the threat of job losses, which the hon. Gentleman asked me to do, but we will certainly do everything we can to prevent that threat being realised. Both Governments are absolutely duty-bound to co-operate for the people involved and for the Scottish economy.

Michael Moore: I think that everybody here accepts the seriousness of what is at stake in this dispute, but we are in danger of downplaying the impact that closure would have not only on Grangemouth, Linlithgow and central Scotland, but on Scotland’s economy and, as other Members have said, that of the United Kingdom. The closure of the Grangemouth complex, or indeed any part of it, would be an act of industrial vandalism the scale of which we have not seen in decades. Given the seriousness of that, I welcome what my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland have been doing, including working with the Scottish Government. Can he assure me that he is willing, before we give up on negotiations, to work with the Scottish Finance Secretary and anybody else and to meet the key players around a table so that we do every last possible thing before thinking of this being sold to somebody else?

Edward Davey: I will first pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who worked extremely hard on this case when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. Much of the contingency planning we have in place is down to his hard work, for which I am grateful. He knows better than anyone what the impact on the Scottish economy would be if part or all of the Grangemouth plant were to close. I can reassure him that we—I am sure that I
	speak for the Scottish Government on this—will do everything we can together, leaving no stone unturned, to try to reach a resolution.

David Simpson: As well as the concerns about supplies to Northern Ireland, it is estimated that upgrading the refinery will cost £300 million. What discussions have the Government had with the owners on helping them through the infrastructure guarantee loan?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is in charge of the discussions with INEOS on infrastructure guarantees. Of course, it is impossible to guarantee an investment proposition until it is put forward, so we await the business case. Given today’s news, it does not look like it will be immediately forthcoming, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman, the House and INEOS that, should a business case be put forward for investment in the petrochemicals plant, we will look at it extremely closely.

Andrew Percy: This is obviously very sad news for those at Grangemouth, but many others working in the chemical and petrochemicals industry, including many thousands on the south bank of the Humber, will also view it with concern. Can the Secretary of State give us an assurance of the Government’s long-term commitment to the sector and inform us whether any lessons can be learnt from this case and applied to other areas, such as the Humber?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right to focus on the chemical industry not only in his area, the Humber, but across the UK. The chemical industry is the UK’s leading manufacturing exporter, and it has significant growth potential. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has been working with others to try to maximise the growth potential. The chemistry growth partnership strategy has been developed, and the aim is for the Government to do everything we can to support our important chemical industries. We have been looking at the impact of a closure of the petrochemicals plant at Grangemouth on the rest of the UK’s chemical industry, and that is also being led by the Secretary of State. So far we believe that the supplies that would be needed for the rest of the UK’s chemical industry can be found, and obviously that is quite an important industrial issue, but we keep that under close review.

Tom Watson: I thank the Secretary of State for the way he is handling the crisis and for his comments to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). I am sure that the Secretary of State will be as saddened as many of the workers were to hear that the negotiations that he managed to secure around the table at ACAS were slightly thwarted because the billionaire hedge fund manger who runs INEOS, Mr Jim Ratcliffe, was on his yacht in the Mediterranean, so the negotiating team had to phone him. I think that shows a lack of seriousness. One of the big concerns people have is that tax avoidance disguises the profitability of the site. Will the Secretary of State consider conducting an independent financial assessment of the site to see what options future buyers might have?

Edward Davey: We will not have access to all the information, because the site is the property of a private company, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would recognise, but we have made it very clear to INEOS, and indeed to the joint owners of the refinery, that we stand ready to assist. I do not think that I can take up his proposal, but he should not take that as an indication of any lack of resolve on the part of Government to do everything possible.

Philip Hollobone: I understand that INEOS believes the plant to be loss-making. What assessment has the Secretary of State or his counterpart in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills made of the source of those losses? Given that the plant is so important in producing a third of Britain’s ethylene product, what assessment has been made of the knock-on effect on all the other companies that depend on that product throughout the United Kingdom economy?

Edward Davey: On my hon. Friend’s latter point, we have already made that assessment, as I have said, and at the moment we are convinced that the chemical supplies required can be supplied from other sources. With regard to why the petrochemicals plant is making a loss, I can only tell him what INEOS has said publicly: that the cost of pensions and salaries make the plant unprofitable. However, as I have said throughout my answers, the Government will remain balanced and even-handed on this issue, so we are not going to say that one party is right and the other is wrong, because we want both sides around the table.

Jack Dromey: I know Grangemouth well. As a former deputy general secretary of the old Transport and General Workers’ Union, I well remember when the tanker drivers broke the fuel blockades to restore fuel to a Scotland then in crisis.
	Make no mistake: today’s announcement poses a serious question mark over the whole of Grangemouth. I recognise that the Secretary of State has done everything he can thus far, but he must not give up. Will he meet INEOS representatives and express to them the strong feeling across the House that, even at this late stage, they should come back to the negotiating table so that we secure the future of the whole of Grangemouth?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and I recognise his knowledge and expertise in this area. I refer him to my statement at the Dispatch Box that we have engaged with INEOS throughout. I am due to have a phone call with Mr Ratcliffe later today.

Ian Swales: I thank the Secretary of State for his answers so far—in particular, his recognition of the importance of the chemical industry. I ask the Government to give maximum support and have close discussions with the petrochemical industry in my constituency—in particular Sabic, with its ethylene cracker. Furthermore, when does he expect to get state aid clearance for his measures on energy-intensive industry, which the Grangemouth complex clearly represents?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Many of his requests fall under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, although we work closely together on all these issues, not least those to do with energy-intensive industries.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that we have an application in front of the Commission with respect to state aid clearance on the costs to energy-intensive industries of the carbon price floor. We already have state aid clearance for our proposals to assist energy-intensive industries with the indirect costs of the European Union emissions trading system. As he will know, we are consulting to help energy-intensive industries with the costs of contracts for difference. Like other member states, we have a comprehensive programme to support energy-intensive industries. We continue to press that case.

Ann McKechin: I concur with others in saying that the closure of the Grangemouth plant is a disaster not only for its staff and the local community but for the Scottish economy. It also has ramifications for the wider UK economy. Does the Minister agree that now is the time for an urgent review of how we regulate the owners of critical infrastructure of this country, to make sure that it is fit for purpose and that we do not again end up having to urge a reluctant company to come back to the negotiating table?

Edward Davey: The Government have looked at all aspects of critical national infrastructure—not just in the petrochemical sector, but across the piece—to make sure that, in the face of a whole series of potential disruptions to critical national infrastructure, whether industrial action or natural causes, critical national infrastructure is available for our country, economy and people.
	We have had the most comprehensive review of policy to ensure that CNI is available. I apologise, but I am not sure what the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), who is leading that, has published on it. However, he is leading that work and it is extremely thorough.

Angus MacNeil: Is what has happened not a puzzling action to take about what many feel is in reality a money-making petrochemical plant? Does the Secretary of State agree with the First Minister, Alex Salmond, that the Grangemouth site has a positive future?

Edward Davey: I certainly believe that it can have a positive future. We need the investment to go in; the Scottish Government will offer the maximum they are able to, £9 million, as part of regional assistance support if investment does go in. I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s question. It is incumbent on us to ensure that the plant has a positive future.

Jim Sheridan: I also welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Any investment in our country is welcome, whether it be foreign or otherwise. However, that should not come at the cost of the livelihoods of the workers—many of whom, along with the local community, pay taxes, unlike Mr Ratcliffe. If there is to be state intervention, and I hope there will be, will the Secretary of State make sure that it does not end up on anyone else’s profit sheet? Will he make sure that we speak to the Chinese partner involved, to see what it has to say?

Edward Davey: We have been in discussion with PetroChina, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), the Minister, is due to meet its representatives next week. We are talking to everyone involved. Given our infrastructure guarantees, we are now more engaged in state support than Governments have been in the past. That makes sure that we get good value for both the taxpayer and the economy. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about will come to pass. As part of the way we do the infrastructure guarantees, we will make sure that we get the outcomes we need for our country.

Eric Joyce: Is the Secretary of State aware—I am sure he is—that people who work for big powerful multinationals need effective, intelligent trade union representation? Sadly, that is the last thing that people in Grangemouth have had for the past few months.
	Today we have heard a lot of personalising—who owns INEOS and so forth—but at the root of all this is Unite’s placing a petty party political issue at the very top of its priorities and ignoring the looming train running along the track. Will the Secretary of State be aware of that in the coming weeks, when he will do what he can to help people at Grangemouth? Is he also aware that INEOS continues to be the main income driver for thousands of families across the Falkirk area?

Edward Davey: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), the hon. Gentleman invites me to talk about a disciplinary dispute. The investigation is due to be published and shared with those involved on Friday and it would be wrong for me to speculate about the rights and wrongs of any individual or individuals involved.

Nicholas Dakin: I welcome the Secretary of State’s approach. Will he say more about how he will assure the UK’s fuel security and secure a sustainable future for UK refineries, including those on the South Humber bank?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for that question. One of the first issues I had to deal with when I became Secretary of State was the potential for a tanker drivers’ dispute. I got very involved in thinking about energy security with respect to transport fuels. The Department has set up a unit that was not there before. When we talk about energy security, we normally mean the security of the electricity supply, but actually the issue is much wider than that. I have personally given a lot more focus to that than previously, particularly in respect of what the hon. Gentleman mentions—not just for Scotland, but for the whole UK. The review of refinery capacity is part of that, but only part; we have to look at a number of issues to make sure that the people who drive the cars, lorries and vans on the roads get the fuel they need, given the critical role that that transport sector plays for our economy.

Gavin Shuker: To what extent does the Secretary of State believe that the current structure of the industry—a small number of large sites, often with foreign owners—effectively stacks the deck in favour of those owners and against the needs of the wider community?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is asking me to speculate about the outcome of our review. Given that I have not received the report, that would be unwise. However, large complexes are needed to refine fuels in what is a capital-intensive business. Small players would be unlikely to have such capital. Whether the hon. Gentleman or I like it or not, there are going to be big players. The question is whether we have the right fiscal, financial and regulatory framework to make sure that we have the refinery capacity that our economy needs. That is what the review will answer.

BILL PRESENTED

Counsellors and Psychotherapists (Regulation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Geraint Davies, supported by Dr Julian Lewis, Jonathan Edwards, Mrs Siân C. James, Jessica Morden, Chris Evans and Mr Mark Williams, presented a Bill to provide that the Health Professionals Council be the regulatory body for counsellors and psychotherapists; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 22 November, and to be printed (Bill 120).

Funding for Local Authorities Bill

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Gisela Stuart: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a commission to identify the changes in the law necessary to provide for the differing requirements for funding of local authorities taking into account the varying demand for the services they provide; and for connected purposes.
	The title of the Bill mentions local authorities, but I want to focus on cities. Cities are the engines of economic growth, and one does not go for growth by switching off the engine. In the words of the Centre for Cities:
	“Cities don’t follow the national economy—they are the national economy.”
	Let me start by declaring not so much an interest as a bias, and a strong one. I am a Birmingham MP, and one of the landmarks of the centre of Birmingham university is a tower known as Old Joe. The Joe in question is Joe Chamberlain, founder of the first civic university with an emphasis on business, who in November 1873, almost exactly 140 years ago, accepted the nomination for mayor of Birmingham and began the two-and-a-half year term of office that has been widely acclaimed as the most outstanding mayoralty in English history. He municipalised gas, which he allowed to make profits that would be ploughed back into the city; municipalised water, which, as a public health good, was not allowed to make a profit; initiated a massive housing programme; and, together with George Dixon and others, established the principle of free education in the city. He did so in two and a half years. We would still be running pilot studies or requesting permission from Westminster to do anything.
	We have devolved power, but in today’s Birmingham it is clear that we have not devolved enough. Devolution has gone to Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and London, but not to our cities. In Birmingham we have Europe’s largest local authority, with a population of over 1 million. We are the fastest growing young city in Europe, with 40% of the population aged under 25, yet Ladywood and Hodge Hill constituencies consistently feature in the top three national unemployment figures. England is clearly unfinished business in terms of devolution. I regret that we do not have more directly elected mayors and that we have not completely moved towards unitary authorities. One fact remains: we are still the most centrally controlled developed country in western Europe and, probably, in the G20. In the UK some 30% of public expenditure is controlled by local government, but Whitehall needs to let go of much more. In the US and Sweden, 50% is devolved; in Canada and Denmark almost 70% is spent at Länder, or city, level.
	Last year’s report by Lord Heseltine, “No stone unturned in pursuit of growth”, made a powerful case for decentralising economic powers. He looked at the various regional contributions to UK gross value added over the last 30 years; it makes depressing reading. In England, in London and the south-east, contributions have steadily increased; in the east of England and the
	south-west they have remained roughly level; and in all the other regions to the north of that line they have continued to decline. Allowing the south to overheat and the midlands and the north to be drained of energy is bad for the whole country. Central Government talk about letting go, but when it comes to the crunch they lose their nerve. There are regional growth funds, city deals, enterprise zones, and all kinds of pilots, and all that is great and commendable, but it is simply not enough.
	Things are not only not moving in the right direction; they are getting worse. The undeniably necessary cuts in spending are made in a distorted framework that hits hardest those who most need support. It is wrong to devolve responsibilities but not match the funding or the freedom to rearrange the money available. It is wrong to have the largest cuts in areas where the jobs are fewest. It is wrong to have a situation where the National Audit Office warns that 12% of councils are at risk of being unable to balance their books in the future, with potentially disastrous consequences. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who is on the Front Bench, did not challenge that figure when I raised it earlier this week. The Local Government Association calculates that in the current Parliament local government’s core funding will fall by 43%, and by 2020 there will be a £15.6 billion funding gap. The future looks worse for our core cities. For 2013-14, the difference is negligible, but for 2014-15 there is a forecast fall of 5% compared with a 3.4% fall nationwide.
	Yesterday Birmingham came to the Jubilee Room to show what the city has to offer: food, music, ideas, energy and diversity. By the way, we still make things in Birmingham. However, the future could look pretty bleak. In a phone-in from local residents conducted that morning, the three areas they said they wanted local government to address were better transport, the creation of jobs, and better regional co-operation. None of those things can be done in a framework of short-term, unco-ordinated funding cuts. Over the past three years, our spending power in Birmingham has declined by 13% compared with a national average of 9.3%. There is something not right when every man, woman and child in Birmingham has had £149 taken from the money given by the Government, while people in prosperous Wokingham in Berkshire lost just £19 a head. That cannot be fair. Birmingham has calculated that from 2011 to 2017 it would need to find savings of £825 million—£210 million more than expected. Cuts of that magnitude threaten the future viability of local government. At present, only a third of Birmingham’s £1.3 billion budget is controllable. The predicted shortfalls
	suggest that we will have a cut of two thirds in that one controllable third of the budget.
	So why are things so bad in Birmingham? First, cuts nationwide to local authorities average £74 per person, while in Birmingham the figure is £149. Secondly, there is a colossal revenue shortfall created by keeping council tax rises artificially low for five successive years—1.9% during the Tory years and frozen for past two years. Thirdly, two thirds of the city’s funding comes directly from central Government rather than taxation and other sources—a much higher proportion than in most local authorities.
	But this Bill is not asking for money or putting a case of rural versus urban; it is asking for a commission to be set up that addresses the currently broken model for financing and running local government in general, and our big cities in particular. The commission should be guided by three principles. First, it must recognise the need for financial stability and sustainability; money needs to be distributed in a way that recognises the real needs and responsibilities of our cities. Secondly, money raised in our cities should stay in cities, releasing them to drive the growth and prosperity we will all share. Thirdly, checks and balances should be provided to prevent any one Government from unsettling the funding structure on a political whim.
	The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has said:
	“we are clear that the current system of local government funding allocation needs to change. The susceptibility of the local government settlement to the see-saw of political influence means that it is well overdue for fundamental reform.”
	I believe that we can build on the work of the Heseltine review of 2012 and the Michael Lyons inquiry into local government of 2007. I want a third commission that looks specifically at funding structures and revenue flows and has at the core of its thinking the future sustainable prosperity of our cities and the recognition that, whether we talk about city regions or not, cities are the driving force of their regions, and if we go on cutting them, we will destroy the surroundings areas as well.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Ms Gisela Stuart, Richard Burden, Mr Liam Byrne, Jack Dromey, Mr Roger Godsiff, Mr Khalid Mahmood, Shabana Mahmood, Steve McCabe, Mr Clive Betts, Mr Nicholas Brown, Paul Goggins and Fabian Hamilton present the Bill.
	Ms Gisela Stuart accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November and to be printed (Bill 117).

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[8th Allotted Day]
	 — 
	Northern Ireland

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the ongoing discussions in Northern Ireland chaired by Dr Richard Haass on a number of important issues including the legacy of the Troubles; recognises the deep sense of loss still felt by the innocent victims of violence and their continuing quest for truth and justice; acknowledges the valour and sacrifice of the men and women who served and continue to serve in the armed forces, the police and the prison service in Northern Ireland; and is resolved to ensure that those who engaged in or supported acts of terrorism will not succeed in rewriting the narrative of this troubled period in Northern Ireland’s history.
	It is a privilege to move the motion standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and other colleagues on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. First, I wish to record an apology on behalf of my right hon. Friend. As Members will be aware, he is attending a memorial service in his constituency to mark the 20th anniversary of the Shankill bomb on 23 October 1993, in which nine innocent people tragically lost their lives.
	Today we remember the families of John Desmond Frizzel, aged 63, in whose fish shop the bomb was exploded; his daughter Sharon McBride, aged 29, married to Alan with one child; George Williamson, 63 years old, married with two children, and his wife Gillian Williamson, 49 years old; Evelyn Baird, 27 years old, married with two children; her daughter Michelle Baird, seven years old, a schoolchild; Leanne Murray, 13 years old, a schoolchild; Michael Morrison, 27 years old, married with three children; and Wilma McKee, 38 years old, married with two children.
	Today I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will join me in saying that the tragic loss and pain suffered by those families and the thousands of innocent victims—whether Protestant, Roman Catholic or of other faiths—killed or maimed in Northern Ireland, here in Great Britain or elsewhere during our troubled past will never be forgotten by those of us who cherish the value of human life, reject violence and pursue peace as the only way forward for Northern Ireland. Today we especially remember the families of the victims of the Shankill bomb.
	I also wish to acknowledge the presence of the Secretary of State. I am aware that she had other obligations and commitments this week outside of the United Kingdom, and we appreciate her presence today.
	Discussions between the political parties at Stormont have failed to achieve sufficient consensus on dealing with the legacy of the troubled past to which I have referred. Therefore, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have invited Dr Richard Haass to chair discussions about this and related matters such as parades and protests, flags, emblems and symbols. Dr Haass is assisted in this work by a small team, including Meghan O’Sullivan, who is his vice-chair of the talks presently under way.
	I also acknowledge the work of the previous Consultative Group on the Past, led by Lord Eames and Denis Bradley, and the recommendations set out in its report. However,
	I must place on record the fact that many of those recommendations were rejected at the time, not least because of the schism that exists at the very heart of the debate on the past and the definition of a victim.
	The Democratic Unionist party remains firmly of the view that we cannot equate the perpetrators of terrorist violence with their innocent victims, yet that is precisely what the current law does in Northern Ireland under the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. This is a law that the DUP seeks to change, and for that reason I have proposed a private Member’s Bill that is due to be given its Second Reading in December. My Bill would ensure that an individual killed or injured as a result of their own act of terrorism or convicted of a terrorism-related offence as defined in law would not be classified as a victim for the purposes of deriving any benefit from schemes designed to assist victims and survivors.
	I referred at the outset to the Shankill bomb and the innocent people murdered by the IRA in that incident. One of the IRA terrorists on that day, the bomber Thomas Begley, was killed when the bomb exploded, and his accomplice Sean Kelly was seriously injured. When convicted of this heinous crime, Sean Kelly was given nine life sentences—one life sentence for each life he had destroyed—yet under the early release scheme that formed part of the Belfast agreement, Kelly was released after serving just seven years in prison. That is less than one year for each life that he destroyed that day on the Shankill road.
	That is an enormous burden for the families of those victims to bear. Michelle Williamson, whose father and mother were murdered by Sean Kelly, campaigned vigorously to prevent his release. Regrettably, Kelly walked free. To have this injustice compounded by the fact that the law currently defines the IRA bombers Sean Kelly and Thomas Begley as victims in just the same way as the nine innocent people who died that day on the Shankill road are defined as victims is an outrage. It is an affront to decency and the rule of law, and it is something that this Parliament should act to change. For the sake of the nine innocent people who died on that terrible day 20 years ago to this day, I trust and pray that parties throughout the House will support the necessary change to the legislation.
	That is fundamental to finding an agreed way forward on dealing with the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. On the definition, let me be clear: whether the innocent victims were murdered by those IRA bombers or by the Ulster Volunteer Force gang known as the Shankill Butchers that operated on the Shankill road, or whether the victims were Protestant or Roman Catholic or of other faiths or none, it does not matter. There cannot be equivocation between the innocent victims of terrorism and those who perpetrated those acts of terrorism. The principle applies in all cases. Those who commission or commit murder cannot be equated in a definition with their innocent victims.
	Of course, this is not the only challenge we face in dealing with the legacy of the past. This summer has been a stark reminder of the difficulties surrounding very sensitive issues that we desperately need to address and resolve. I am bound to say, in the absence of the Sinn Fein Members elected to this House, that their attitude in the summer and recently has not helped to create an atmosphere in which we can make progress.
	I refer specifically to an event that occurred in Castlederg in August when we witnessed a blatant glorification of terrorism by senior members of Sinn Fein. Castlederg is a small town in County Tyrone near the border with the Irish Republic. Many terrorist atrocities were committed there during what we call the troubles. The IRA waged a vicious sectarian campaign against the local Protestant community and especially targeted the security forces.
	This August, republicans held a commemoration event in Castlederg to unveil a memorial to two IRA terrorists, Seamus Harvey and Gerard McGlynn, who 40 years ago, like Thomas Begley, were killed by their own bomb. I cannot understate the insensitivity of this event. Initially, republicans even sought, as part of the commemoration, to have a parade past some of the locations where the IRA had murdered people in Castlederg.
	The speeches that were made on that day, most notably by the Sinn Fein Member of the Legislative Assembly, Gerry Kelly, were undoubtedly interpreted as a glorification of terrorism, and rightly so. Mr Kelly was convicted of trying to blow up the Old Bailey in London in March 1973. In his speech, he asserted that his actions were not acts of terrorism. I ask every Member of this House the following question: if a gang that includes Mr Kelly plants a bomb outside a courthouse in a public place and that bomb explodes, killing one person and injuring more than 200 people, is that an act of terrorism or something else? My understanding is that that is an act of terrorism as defined by the law of the United Kingdom and international law. We have the ridiculous situation whereby republicans are trying to redefine what terrorism is and to recast the actions that they perpetrated during the troubles. They are trying to explain away the heinous nature of those actions by some form of twisted justification. That will not do and we will not stand for it. There can be no redefinition of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

John Baron: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on raising this important issue. It is important that we do not paper over the fact that terrorists committed horrendous crimes during the troubles. We should all congratulate the civilians and soldiers on their courage and steadfastness at that time. Will he admit that it is important to remember those terrorist acts if only because, in remembering the horrendous nature of those crimes, the Province stands a better chance of having a brighter future?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct and I will speak about commemoration and dealing with the legacy of the past in a moment.

Kate Hoey: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his party on calling this debate. He mentioned the fact that Sinn Fein MPs do not take their seats. Does he think that it is time for this House to get to grips with that issue? There is an idea that we cannot have that debate in this House. However, those MPs still receive allowances and support. Is it not time that we all stood up to the blackmail, almost, that we have from the Sinn Fein MPs, who think that they are entitled to decide whether they come here or not, and yet—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Lady wishes to speak later, but she is in danger of cutting the time that she is allowed.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I concur entirely with the hon. Lady’s remarks. She can be assured that that issue will be raised on another day in the House of Commons.
	On the same day that the IRA commemoration took place in Castlederg, 11 August, there was a memorial service in Omagh to commemorate the Omagh bombing of August 1998, in which 29 innocent people lost their lives. Sinn Fein members were present at that event in Omagh. I pose a simple question: how can the same party, on the same day, in the same county engage in an act of glorification of terrorism in one town and stand alongside the victims of a similar atrocity in another town, and claim that there is no double standard?

William McCrea: For 14 years, I represented Omagh and Castlederg in the House of Commons. Sinn Fein have a twisted mentality that means that they can easily do that, because they were not associated with the Omagh bomb and they close their minds to all the other bombings, including Teebane and the many other atrocities across the Province.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for those words. I pay tribute to the way in which he has represented people in Northern Ireland over many years. The personal cost that he and his family have borne for that representation is often overlooked. He is absolutely correct.
	We cannot equivocate on this matter. The finger would be pointed in our direction if we sought to justify an act of terrorism by one paramilitary organisation in Northern Ireland while condemning the same kind of action by another paramilitary organisation. The two bombers whom Sinn Fein commemorated in Castlederg were transporting a bomb that was designed to murder innocent people in a country town. The people whom they condemned in Omagh on the same day were doing the same thing: they transported a bomb into the heart of a town in the same county of Tyrone and it was designed to murder innocent people. What happened in Castlederg and what happened in Omagh must be condemned equally. It is time that Sinn Fein grew up and recognised that wrong is wrong, no matter who the perpetrator. There can be no rewriting of the history of the troubles in Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, particularly given that I was a few minutes late for the debate, for which I apologise to all Members. I invite him to confirm to the House, as I am sure he will do gladly, that his party leader, who serves the entire community in Northern Ireland as First Minister, has brought those criticisms of Sinn Fein’s behaviour to the attention of his Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness. I would like that assurance.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I know that the hon. Lady takes a keen interest in all these matters. I confirm to the House that our party leader, the First Minister, Peter Robinson, has on numerous occasions brought to the attention of the Deputy First Minister the inconsistency and double standards adopted by Sinn Fein in these matters, and the damage that that does to the building of community relations and the development of reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein need to address this issue.
	We will not stand for a process that seeks to paint the forces of the state as the bad guys and the terrorists as the good guys. I remind the House that the Sutton index, which tabulates and records all the deaths associated with the troubles in Northern Ireland, is very clear that of the 3,531 deaths recorded to date, the Army was responsible for 297. Many of those were entirely lawful and legitimate, and were carried out by soldiers acting in the course of their duty to protect human life. The Ulster Defence Regiment, in which I was proud to serve, was responsible for eight deaths. When one hears the attacks that are made against the integrity, valour and sacrifice of the Ulster Defence Regiment, one would think that it was responsible for many more. I reiterate that those deaths were the result of soldiers acting in the course of duty. The Royal Ulster Constabulary, which is also demonised at times by Irish republicans, was responsible for 55 deaths. Interestingly, the Garda, the Irish police, were responsible for four deaths and the Irish army for one.
	Let us look at the record of the paramilitary organisations. On the republican side, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Irish People’s Liberation Organisation, which were part of the same grouping, were responsible for 135 deaths and the Provisional IRA was responsible for 1,707 deaths. The Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Freedom Fighters were responsible for 260 deaths, and the Ulster Volunteer Force was responsible for 430 deaths.
	Let me say that every death associated with the troubles in Northern Ireland is regrettable. I do not seek, in any sense, to diminish the sense of loss that people feel when they lose someone.

Gregory Campbell: My right hon. Friend is outlining the distinction between the various paramilitary groups of all kinds and the security forces. Does he agree that there is one massive and very simple distinction: the forces of law and order were committed to maintaining law and order, whatever may be said about a tiny percentage of their number who exceeded lawful authority, while the paramilitary groups were set up precisely to kill, murder and create mayhem, which they did for many years until they were prevented from continuing to do so?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend; he is absolutely correct and I need not add anything to what he said.
	The reality is that republican terrorists were responsible for 60% of the totality of deaths during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Loyalist paramilitaries were responsible for 30%, and forces associated with the state—whether in the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom—were responsible for 10% of those deaths. As my hon. Friend stated clearly, the vast majority of those killings were within the law and carried out in the course of duty by soldiers and police officers protecting the community.
	However, when we look at the current process for dealing with the past, whether the Historical Enquiries Team, the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, or an inquest or inquiries funded by the state, the vast majority of resources to examine the past in Northern Ireland are devoted to the 10% of killings, with a scant amount devoted to the 90% of killings
	carried out by paramilitary organisations on both sides. That cannot continue as it only adds to the sense of disillusionment felt by many people about the current process in Northern Ireland. It is one-sided, biased, and is assisting Irish republicans to rewrite what is called the narrative of the troubles. That has to stop. We must find a process to ensure that attention goes to the more than 3,000 unsolved murders in Northern Ireland, the vast majority of which were committed by illegal paramilitary organisations on both sides. The victims of those atrocities deserve better than they are getting at the moment.

Sammy Wilson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is reinforced by successive Governments who have permitted, endorsed and financed inquiry after inquiry into the role of the security forces during the troubles in Northern Ireland, while at the same time there is no such inquiry into the role of republican paramilitaries?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We hear republicans talk about a truth process and the need for truth, yet when the challenge has been brought to their door, I think, for example, of the Saville inquiry into the events in Londonderry in 1972. When Martin McGuinness, now Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, gave evidence to that inquiry, he refused to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, citing some IRA code that he had signed up to when he joined the Provisional IRA.
	Sinn Fein agreed to co-operate with the Smithwick inquiry, which is investigating circumstances surrounding the murders of the two most senior officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan—killed by the IRA in south Armagh. Sinn Fein agreed to assist the inquiry with its investigation, and designated two IRA members from south Armagh to meet lawyers representing the Smithwick inquiry. It was a farce. The two IRA members arrived at the meeting; lawyers were present, there was a discussion, and questions were asked. Each time a question was asked that might in some remote way have caused the IRA members to implicate any member of the IRA in any way whatsoever, they left the room, made a phone call, came back in and said, “We cannot answer that question.”
	That was a private meeting with lawyers. It was not on the public record or in the public domain, yet even in those circumstances the IRA could not tell the truth about what happened and the circumstances surrounding the murder of the two most senior RUC officers to be killed in the troubles. What hope do we have of getting the truth from Irish republicans when their leadership, when called on to tell the truth, cannot do it, and when those members who have been designated by the leadership to tell the truth also refuse to do so? The problem for me is that when the state is called on to tell the truth, records are brought out, filing cabinets opened, and it is all laid bare.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) for initiating this important debate on dealing with the past. Is he aware of the several hundreds of files lodged in a place in Derbyshire that have not yet been released to the Historical Enquiries Team? Those would bring great benefit to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in investigating many unsolved crimes.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I thank the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie)—that beautiful part of Northern Ireland—for her intervention, but I think she would be better directing that question to the Secretary of State. Of course the state has a duty to co-operate, but the difficulty I have is that paramilitary organisations are not under any such duty to co-operate, and show no indication whatsoever of a willingness to co-operate in providing the truth. Through the Historical Enquiries Team, a number of cases have been reviewed. Have republicans come forward at any stage in that process to assist the families of those victims with information that might help them get to the truth? No, they have not in any case.

Jim Shannon: For the record, there have been occasions when the authorities have inadvertently given evidence or information that they should not have given, thereby disclosing people who were involved in helping the security forces. On occasion evidence has been given that should not have been given, and compromised people who were helping the security forces.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: Indeed, and I am sure my hon. Friend will wish to elaborate on that important point in his remarks. The extent to which the state is co-operating, whether with an inquest, the police ombudsman, or through the Historical Enquiries Team, could potentially compromise the modus operandi of the security services, and others who are tasked with protecting the community, not only now but in the future.
	Before drawing my remarks to a close I want to place on record some principles that I feel are important as we seek to address the legacy of the past in these talks with Richard Haass. The first principle is that victims have the right to justice and must continue to have that right. Last Monday, as part of the Haass process, I met a number of victims at Stormont. I want to quote the words of one young women, whose brother I had the honour to serve with in the Ulster Defence Regiment. He was a young man called Alan Johnston from Kilkeel, my home town, and I served with him in the 3rd (County Down) Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment. He was murdered one morning on his way to work with his lunchbox under his arm. He was a joiner and a part-time soldier, cut down by the IRA. His sister said this:
	“A denial of justice would only serve to re-victimise the innocent victims.”
	I agree with her. It would be wrong to deny victims the right to justice.

Paul Goggins: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his party on raising this important issue. He referred to his meeting with victims as part of the Haass process. Does he agree it is important that Dr Haass takes an inclusive approach to the process, and engages not just with the parties but also with victims and survivors?

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I commend the right hon. Gentleman on the excellent work he did in Northern Ireland when he was a Minister. He is right, and I assure him that Dr Haass is meeting a wide range of people—as is Meghan O’Sullivan—including the victims. Indeed, some of the victims we saw on Monday had already met Dr Haass. It is important that their voice is heard in this debate.
	The second principle I want to be clear about is that there must be no amnesty for the perpetrators of terrorist violence. Thirdly, as I have already stated at length, the definition of a victim of the troubles in Northern Ireland should exclude those who were killed or injured as a result of engaging in an act of terrorism, or convicted of a terrorist-related offence. We hope that that will be taken forward either in this House, or through the Haass process. Fourthly, the glorification of terrorism should not be facilitated or allowed, and if the law needs to be strengthened in that regard, it should be strengthened. This is a free country and a democracy, and we are proud of freedom of speech, but there are times when we have to step in and say that what people say and how they behave is irresponsible, provocative and should stop.
	The Democratic Unionist party is strongly opposed to the establishment of any kind of one-sided and unbalanced inquiry process. Any evidentiary process such as a truth commission will inevitably focus on the state, because the paramilitary organisations did not keep records or documents and, as I have stated, are unlikely to tell the truth. Such a process would create an unfair narrative of the past, in which the true perpetrators of the vast majority of the deaths and injuries—more than 90%—will seek to legitimise their actions. They would not be held to account or held responsible for what they have done.
	The needs of the victims and survivors must be met as far as possible. Their loss and circumstances should be treated with respect and sensitivity. They deserve and need proper recognition. Victims should have the opportunity to tell their story without it having to be intertwined with the voices of the perpetrators. Innocent victims should be remembered through a significant act of remembrance and commemoration, and, potentially, through a significant regional memorial in Northern Ireland. That could take the form of a memorial garden to the innocent victims of terrorism.
	In conclusion, the narrative of the past should reflect core values, including that terrorism was and is wrong, and that it is not a legitimate method of obtaining a political or other objective. The narrative must clearly reflect the fact that approximately 90% of the deaths were the result of terrorist actions, and that the majority of those were by republican groups, so we are very clear that we condemn murder on all sides.
	All hon. Members have a responsibility to address the issues relating to our troubled past. The Government have a responsibility—I hope the Secretary of State tells us what role the Government will play—and the process cannot be down to the political parties in Northern Ireland. Equally, the Irish Government have a responsibility. Some of the atrocities were committed in the Irish Republic; some were committed by those acting from the territory of the Irish Republic. The Irish Government have questions to answer about the arming of the IRA in the early days of the troubles, their extradition policy, and their failure at times to co-operate fully with the RUC in a way that would have brought to justice those responsible for terrorist actions in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government therefore have a role and a responsibility in the process.
	Finally, I pay tribute to those who have served this country and protected the community, whether they were in the Royal Ulster Constabulary or, as it is today,
	the Police Service of Northern Ireland; in the armed forces and the regiments that came faithfully to Northern Ireland to serve and protect the community, some of whom are current Members of the House; or in the Ulster Defence Regiment, the locally recruited regiment of the Army, and its successor, the Royal Irish Regiment.
	It is worth reminding the House that the RUC was awarded the George cross by Her Majesty the Queen, as a recognition of the collective courage and dedication to duty of all who served in the RUC and accepted the danger and stress it brought to them and their families. The Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment were awarded the conspicuous gallantry cross by Her Majesty the Queen in recognition of their valour and sacrifice over the years in Northern Ireland. It pains me when I hear nationalist parties attacking the RUC, the UDR and the Royal Irish Regiment in the way they do—without any balance in their approach to the service that those men and women provided in protecting the community.
	I trust that the House will support the motion.

Theresa Villiers: I thank the Democratic Unionist party for giving the House the opportunity to discuss matters of such great significance not only for Northern Ireland but for the whole United Kingdom. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) on a passionate and moving speech on Northern Ireland’s troubled past.
	As the right hon. Gentleman reminded the House, and as we heard in Prime Minister’s questions, the debate coincides with the anniversary of one of the most appalling atrocities of Northern Ireland’s past: the Shankill bomb, which had the tragic consequences set out by the right hon. Gentleman. In the days following the attack, my predecessor as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my noble Friend Lord Mayhew, spoke in the House of the revulsion that people felt at such a hideous and atrocious attack on people going about their business on that Saturday morning 20 years ago.
	I echo those sentiments today, and repeat the long-standing position of this and previous Governments that politically motivated violence, from wherever it came, was never justified. The Government will not condone attempts to glorify or legitimise acts of terrorism. We will never treat the men and women of the police and the Army who acted with such courage and self-sacrifice in upholding the rule of law as equivalent to those who used terrorism to try to further their political ends.
	My noble Friend Lord Mayhew, in concluding his statement to the House on the Shankill bomb, reaffirmed:
	“In this democracy, it is only through dialogue—dialogue between those who unequivocally reject the use or threat of violence—that the foundation will in the end be found for a fair and hence a lasting peace.”—[Official Report, 25 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 578.]
	Thankfully, over the ensuing years, that dialogue did go forward, beginning with the 1993 Downing street declaration and continuing with the 1998 Belfast agreement and its successors, and the basis was found for the relative peace and stability that Northern Ireland enjoys today.
	Twenty years on from the Shankill bomb, Northern Ireland has its own inclusive, devolved Administration. Whatever the imperfections of the devolved institutions, they are a vast improvement on what went before. Relations within these islands—both between north and south, and between London and Dublin—have never been stronger, with both Governments determined to work closely together on the economic and other challenges our two countries face. The main paramilitary campaigns that led to more than 3,500 lost lives and such widespread and tragic suffering, which we have heard about this afternoon, have come to an end. Lethal though they are, the people who continue to seek to pursue their aims through violence are small in number and enjoy almost no public support whatever.
	The transformation that has taken place over the past 15 years is a great testimony to the leadership and courage shown by so many of Northern Ireland’s political leaders, a number of whom are in the Chamber. It also vividly demonstrates the power of dialogue as a means of dealing with problems that were previously viewed as intractable. Yet, for all the progress, there is no doubt that the legacy of the past continues to cast a shadow and have an impact on today’s Northern Ireland. I see that whenever I meet victims of terrorism, as I did, for example, in Castlederg just a few weeks ago. I also see it when I meet those who believe that the unjustified actions of the state robbed them of their loved ones. All of them have highly personal tales of tragedy, and it is impossible not to be moved by their stories.
	It is therefore not surprising that there are calls from a number of quarters in Northern Ireland for a mechanism or process to be initiated to deal with the past and grapple with the questions outlined today by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. I agree with him that, in taking forward that process, we must put the needs of victims at its heart. He is right to look at the options that involve enabling victims to tell their stories, so that the facts of what happened to them are on record and never forgotten.
	Numerous attempts have been made in the 15 years since the 1998 agreement to come up with a so-called overarching process on the past. In 2008, the previous Government established the consultative group on the past under the chairmanship of Lord Eames and Denis Bradley. On coming to office, my predecessor as Secretary of State published a summary of the responses to Eames-Bradley and embarked on an extensive round of meetings with Northern Ireland’s political parties, victims groups and other interested bodies. Since becoming Secretary of State just over a year ago, I have had wide-ranging discussions on the subject both within Northern Ireland and with the Irish Government.
	However, so far, none of the initiatives by either the previous Government or the current one has succeeded in establishing a consensus on how best to take things forward. That is certainly not to say that nothing is happening on the past—far from it. As well as a host of local and oral history projects and the tireless work by the voluntary sector in supporting victims, there are initiatives such as the CAIN archive at the university of Ulster, the renowned collection at the Linen Hall library, and thousands of hours of historical footage held by the BBC and Ulster Television. In fact, given the wealth of archive material available, Northern Ireland’s troubles are probably one of the most comprehensively recorded and documented periods in history.
	For our part, the Government are committed to accelerating the release of state papers, so we are moving from the 30-year rule to a 20-year rule, although this will always have to be done in a way that is sensitive to the article 2 rights of all parties and to national security considerations. We are working with the Irish Government on the decade of centenaries that is now under way. Both Governments want to use the forthcoming anniversaries to promote mutual respect and understanding between different traditions, and to prevent them from being exploited by those intent on causing division and conflict. We continue to support the work being done in the devolved sphere, for example by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the Historical Enquiries Team and the Victims’ Commissioner. The Government have been fully prepared to apologise where the state has failed to uphold the highest standards of conduct. That has been done in the cases of Claudy, Patrick Finucane and, of course, Bloody Sunday, where the Prime Minister acknowledged to the House in the frankest of terms that what happened that day in Londonderry in 1972 was “unjustified and unjustifiable.”
	There is no doubt that some want a broader initiative, a so-called “overarching” process, and they have asked the Government to deliver it. I understand that, and of course the UK Government are prepared to play their part in dealing with legacy issues, but I am also very clear that we do not own the past. The reality is that for any process to succeed it must command a substantial consensus among the Northern Ireland political parties and across the wider community.
	The Government strongly welcome the initiative by the five parties in the Northern Ireland Executive to begin to take local ownership of this issue through the establishment of the Richard Haass working group on flags, emblems, parades and the past. While not formally part of this group, the Government are fully engaged with it. I and my officials have had a number of meetings and discussions with Dr Haass and his team, and I am seeing him again next week. Last Thursday, Dr Haass had talks in Downing street where he met the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who gave their full backing to the crucial task that Dr Haass has undertaken. It is clear that the Haass talks are dealing with some of Northern Ireland’s most difficult and long-standing fault lines and there is no guarantee of success, but I believe that there is a genuine willingness on the part of Northern Ireland’s political leadership to make progress. From my discussions with Dr Haass, I believe that there is no better person to help achieve that. With 12 months of protests and tensions around flags and parades, it is essential that progress is made.
	While the focus of today’s short debate is about dealing with the past, it is also important that we do not lose sight of the overriding need to build a better future for everyone in Northern Ireland. That is particularly true on the economy and on building a shared society that is no longer blighted by the sectarian divisions that have caused so much damage over the years, both areas on which the Government are working very closely with the Executive. As I have made clear, progress cannot await the outcome of the Haass talks; it is vital that momentum is maintained. On the economy, there are now clear signs that, like the rest of the UK, Northern Ireland is turning a corner, with business activity growing,
	unemployment falling, the property market stabilising and construction finally starting to pick up after the disastrous crash experienced under the previous Government.
	There is much more that needs to be done, which is why the Government and the Executive are pressing ahead with implementing the economic package we signed in Downing street in June, and on which we jointly published an update a fortnight ago. As part of that package, the Prime Minister and I attended a highly successful international investment conference at Titanic Belfast, where senior business figures from across the world were shown just what a great place Northern Ireland is in which to invest and to grow a business.
	On addressing community divisions, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have repeatedly pressed for progress. We therefore warmly welcomed the community relations initiative by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, with the publication of “Together: Building a United Community” in May. It was a significant moment last week when the First Minister of Northern Ireland broke new ground for a Unionist leader in addressing a Gaelic Athletic Association event. As the First Minister himself pointed out, this would have been unthinkable a few years ago and is another sign that Northern Ireland is moving forward.
	In conclusion, I would like echo the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley in paying a warm tribute to the members of the police, the prison service and the armed forces who served with such distinction, valour and courage in defending and upholding the rule of law, defending democracy and protecting the community in Northern Ireland. This is a welcome opportunity to reiterate the thanks of this House for all they did during the troubles and to reiterate the thanks to all those who currently defend the community in the security forces in Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene. I have waited patiently for the Secretary of State to put on record the Government’s deep and sincere appreciation of the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross—not just within the general title of the police, but the RUC George Cross, which made an enormous sacrifice: 302 murdered police officers, men and women. Too often, this House lets the opportunity go past without putting on the record the debt of gratitude we owe the RUC, particularly the families of those who stood by them and those who did not come home.

Theresa Villiers: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am only too happy to put on record once again the support and tribute to the members of the RUC and their families, who suffered greatly at the hands of terrorists during the troubles, and to their successors in the PSNI, who even today are subject to repeated targeting by the terrorists who still operate in Northern Ireland.

Kate Hoey: Will the Secretary of State tell us what her view is on the recent announcement that the PSNI will try to persecute and prosecute some of the soldiers involved in the terrible incidents of Bloody Sunday so many years ago? Does she think that this is a way of moving forward? Does she not realise that this is making one side of the community feel, when they cannot even get an inquiry into Omagh, that there is not even-handedness?

Theresa Villiers: In the Prime Minister’s statement on Bloody Sunday, he reiterated very clearly that the vast majority of those who served in Northern Ireland, whether in the Army or the RUC, served with distinction, integrity, courage and valour. He also said, however, that one does not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. What happened in Londonderry in 1972 was indefensible. Whether that will lead to criminal prosecutions is a matter for the police and the prosecution authorities in Northern Ireland. It is not a matter for politicians to intervene in. I am sure that great care will be taken in deciding whether it is appropriate for a prosecution to go forward in relation to what happened on that day.

Margaret Ritchie: I thank the right hon. Lady for giving way. I emphasise that murder was and is always wrong, and that terrorism was and is always wrong. In so doing, and to bring some relief to the victims, may I ask the Secretary of State if she would consider immediate discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that the files held in Derbyshire are released to the Historical Enquiries Team for its investigation? That would bring relief right across Northern Ireland in terms of all the unsolved cases.

Theresa Villiers: I am certainly happy to have a conversation with the Secretary of State for Defence on that matter, which the hon. Lady has raised on a number of occasions. I reiterate, however, that the need for transparency always has to be tempered against the need to protect people who might come under threat if their names were disclosed, and to take account of national security interests.
	In her historic speech during her visit to Ireland and Dublin castle in 2011, Her Majesty the Queen spoke of being able to bow to the past, but not be bound by it. It is impossible to be involved in Northern Ireland and not be aware of the power of the past to affect current events, but we know that with the same kind of leadership and courage shown over recent years, the people of Northern Ireland can build a prosperous and united future together. Working with them, that is what the Government are resolutely determined to achieve.

Ivan Lewis: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. Hon. Members will agree that we do not get the chance to discuss Northern Ireland often enough on the Floor of the House, so I thank the Democratic Unionist party for giving us this opportunity and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) for his opening statement. I know that for him this is not only politically important, but personally extremely salient, because of the losses that he and his family suffered as a result of the troubles.
	I also acknowledge the work of Northern Ireland Members who have dealt with these sensitive and complicated issues from the perspective of the friends, neighbours and families of those killed and injured. Their work, alongside voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland such as the Commission for Victims and Survivors, led by Kathryn Stone, provides crucial and unwavering support for the families of victims. As the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State said, it is also
	important to acknowledge that today is the 20th anniversary of the appalling Shankill road bombing and horrendous loss of life. We should also remember the awful events at Greysteel the subsequent week.
	The debate comes at a crucial time in the aftermath of recent concerning disturbances, and in the midst of the Haass talks, in which all the parties in Northern Ireland have agreed to participate. I have been in this role for only 15 days, so I have no intention of presenting myself as an expert on Northern Ireland, but I promise to listen and learn, and then to provide leadership on issues on which I believe that the Opposition can help to make a positive difference. Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to visit Northern Ireland for the first time in my new role. In the past fortnight, I have met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and many of the Northern Ireland MPs here at Westminster, and attended meetings with Members of the Legislative Assembly, business people and community organisations. I have met people whose sense of place and belonging, and connection to family and community, shines through. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude for the guidance and support that I have received during the transition into my new role.
	Notwithstanding the many remaining challenges, Northern Ireland has been transformed over the past two decades by the peace process. My party played an important role in making that process possible, and I am aware of the many people in the House who have shown tremendous leadership by supporting that process through the good times and the bad. Irrespective of the many continued challenges, we have a shared interest and responsibility to ensure that Northern Ireland continues on its journey to build peace, fairness and prosperity.
	Make no mistake: on the whole, Northern Ireland is on the up. Most recently, we saw the successful investment conference in Belfast, and in 2013 alone, Northern Ireland has hosted some of the most important global political, cultural and sporting events. The G8 summit was held in the beautiful surroundings of Lough Erne, while the 10-day world police and fire games, the third-largest sporting event in the world, which attracted competitors and supporters from around the globe, was hosted in Belfast for the first time. Moreover, Derry-Londonderry was designated the UK’s inaugural city of culture. Northern Ireland is in the spotlight for all the right reasons and is taking its rightful place on the world stage.
	Despite that remarkable progress, however, significant challenges remain and we cannot afford to be complacent. The disgraceful scenes of rioting that we witnessed over flags in the early part of the year and over parades in the summer, and the terrible murders of two weeks ago, are a reminder that deep wounds still exist and that the legacy of the past continues to afflict communities in Northern Ireland. In that context, it is important that we pay tribute to the courageous work of the men and women of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who do such an important job on the front line.
	As others have said, violence can never be condoned. It is unacceptable and should be condemned by politicians from all parties and all community leaders. We have welcomed the all-party Haass talks as a crucial opportunity to address the contentious issues of flags, parades and the past. It is essential that these talks lead to meaningful progress and action that has the confidence of the vast
	majority in all communities. That will require not only courageous and visionary political leadership from Northern Irish politicians, but the active and consistent engagement of the UK and Irish Governments. It therefore remains a source of serious concern that too many people in Northern Ireland feel that the present UK Government are insufficiently engaged. Engagement is essential, given the need for recognition of the responsibility the UK Government have for their role in the troubles and of the reality that any process to deal with the past will have financial and legislative implications that, ultimately, will require their support.

Theresa Villiers: The hon. Gentleman repeatedly makes the allegation of disengagement, which is very far from the truth, as I outlined in my speech and at Northern Ireland questions. If he is concerned about disengagement, is he concerned about Opposition Front Benchers, given that his predecessor, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), was barely seen in Northern Ireland during what was a very difficult parading season?

Ivan Lewis: I have made it clear to the right hon. Lady that when we agree with the Government on security issues, we will continue to operate on a bipartisan basis—that is how we should work in the context of Northern Ireland. As an old boss of mine once said, however, perception is reality, and if many politicians and others active in Northern Ireland believe that there is insufficient engagement from the Government, it might just be, with respect, that they are telling the truth. As for her comments about my predecessor, there are very few politicians who, when they leave a job, receive such widespread acclaim—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That acclaim came from all political parties that are doing their best to make a difference in Northern Ireland, so her criticisms of him were not worthy of her.

Theresa Villiers: My concern is about perceptions and reality. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Government are disengaged, I am surprised that he took the trouble to point out two great successes for Northern Ireland—the G8 conference in Fermanagh and the recent investment conference—that would not have happened without the close engagement of the UK Government.

Ivan Lewis: With respect, I have been in this job for only about 13 or 14 days, but the majority of politicians I have met in Northern Ireland feel that there is inadequate engagement from the Government on a range of issues. It is not just about turning up at the high-profile events. Of course, the fact that the Prime Minister attended the recent investment conference was incredibly important, but this is about rolling one’s sleeves up and working, on an ongoing basis, on a range of issues, so that people feel that one has a passion for and a commitment to the challenges facing Northern Ireland.

Sammy Wilson: Whatever the Secretary of State might say about the former shadow Secretary of State, the view of parties in Northern Ireland is that he was assiduous in his work. He visited almost all the constituencies and spent all day with Members going round them, so the Secretary of State was unfair in her allegation that he did not perform his role with enthusiasm, zeal, passion and a concern for people in Northern Ireland.

Ivan Lewis: I thank the hon. Gentleman; I could not have put it better myself. The “hear, hears” we heard earlier demonstrated that his view is echoed by almost every Member who had the privilege of working with my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker).

Theresa Villiers: rose—

Ivan Lewis: I will give way one final time, on this point, to the Secretary of State.

Theresa Villiers: It is simply not true that the Prime Minister’s involvement in Northern Ireland consists only of his turning up at a few high-profile events. A huge amount of planning went into delivering the G8 summit, and it is this Prime Minister who has delivered a wide-ranging economic pact that enables us to work with the Northern Ireland Executive in an unprecedented way to deliver a more prosperous future for Northern Ireland.

Ivan Lewis: The best thing I can do at this stage is to move on with my contribution. The right hon. Lady should reflect on how many people in Northern Ireland feel, and think about the implication of those feelings.
	Engagement is essential because any process that deals with the past will involve financial and legislative implications requiring the support of the UK Government. I want to highlight an initial view of the principles that we believe should apply to any credible process seeking to deal with the past. First, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said, any process must put victims and their families centre stage, while recognising that they will have different views and needs—I have learned that during my first couple of weeks in the role. One of the most powerful meetings I had during my visit to Belfast was with representatives of the families of victims who disappeared during the troubles—they have been described as “the disappeared”. As a result of the peace process, the families I met have had their loved ones returned and have been able to lay them to rest. They told me of not only their pain and trauma, but their desire not to pursue further action against those responsible. However, I am acutely aware that some families have still not experienced similar closure and that others may feel very differently about those responsible. I intend to meet and hear directly from victims and survivors from all backgrounds, as well as from their families and those who care for them. Their stories deserve to be heard and listened to, and their experiences need to be respected, as the right hon. Gentleman said.

Kate Hoey: I know that my hon. Friend is looking forward to getting to know Northern Ireland extremely well. Will he clarify his position on the definition of a “victim”?

Ivan Lewis: After 14 days in my post, I can say that any violence, from whatever source, is to be condemned unequivocally. I would regard anyone who is a victim of violence, intimidation or terror as a victim. If we want to get into a detailed debate about this, I would want some more time in my post so that I can carry out further work and engagement—I have tried to respond as much as I can to my hon. Friend. A big and important part of my job is to spend time with victims and their families to get a sense of how they feel and what the definition of justice means to them. In different circumstances, there can be a different response, so we need to be sensitive to that fact.
	A second important principle is that any process must recognise that significant progress can be made without trying to achieve a shared narrative about the past, as achieving such a narrative would be an unrealistic expectation. What is of paramount importance is that nationalists and Unionists learn to respect the equal status and legitimacy of their fellow citizens now and in the future.
	The third principle is that while it is, of course, right to consider all options about addressing responsibility and accountability for past wrongdoing, it is also important to say that any process must recognise the rights and responsibilities defined by the European convention on human rights. The convention is clear. It stresses the importance of ensuring justice, truth and reparation in response to violation and abuses, which would require a deep and sensitive understanding of what that would mean for the wishes and expectations of victims and their families.
	I have always believed that the public expect politicians, on the whole, to focus primarily on change and the future. However, it is clear that part of securing a better future for Northern Ireland requires us to deal with the unresolved issues of the past, which is why the Haass talks are so important and cannot be allowed either to fail, or to arrive at superficial solutions. Haass has the potential to achieve meaningful transformational change if all political parties, and the UK and Irish Governments, show leadership and seek common ground in the interests of all people of Northern Ireland.

Lady Hermon: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he, his party leader and his party will make a submission to the Haass talks, albeit he has been in his post for only a short period? Will he kindly publish any such submission so that rest of us can be au fait with the requirements of the Labour party?

Ivan Lewis: I am delighted to give the hon. Lady that assurance. I will be meeting Richard Haass next week, or the week after, and we will certainly make any written representations public and ensure that hon. Members are aware of our position.
	Just as it would be wrong to minimise the importance of the past, it would be equally mistaken to suggest that that, in itself, is Northern Ireland’s biggest challenge. The greatest challenge is the corrosive cycle of poor educational attainment, worklessness and intergenerational deprivation that continues to afflict far too many families and communities in Northern Ireland. That lethal cocktail has the potential to be the breeding ground for extremists, and for perpetual conflict and instability. Although those issues are primarily the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive, the UK Government have a key role to play in pursuing an active industrial strategy to generate jobs and growth, while reflecting on the negative impact that pernicious policies such as the bedroom tax have on the most vulnerable and also would have on Northern Ireland’s block grant.
	This year’s disturbances should teach us a number of lessons, one of which is undoubtedly that unfinished business remains in relation to the past. However, we must also reflect on the impact of social and economic inequality, which cannot be allowed to prevail if peace
	in Northern Ireland is to move from a political accommodation to a society built on genuine reconciliation and mutual respect.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. If we have a 10-minute limit, we will, I hope, get everybody in.

Laurence Robertson: I thank the Democratic Unionist party for today’s two debates, both of which are very important. I pay great tribute to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), who has been a friend of mine for many years, for the way in which he introduced the debate. I think that the whole House will have found it extremely moving and very sad when he read out the names, ages and family connections of those murdered 20 years ago today—it really reminds us of what a terrible time in Northern Ireland we have seen. I would like to add my sympathies and condolences to all those who survived that attack and lived with the pain of it—it is unimaginable what they went through then and what they are still going through.
	Just last year, I visited Enniskillen with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) for the 25-year anniversary commemoration of another terrible atrocity. I was in Dundalk the day the bomb went off at Omagh and have since visited Omagh three times. I have also met the families in relation to the events at Kingsmill and Ballymurphy, and the Finucane murder. Terrible though those atrocities were, it is worth remembering that they all took place some time ago and since then enormous progress has been made in Northern Ireland—it is very important to remember that. We have seen Her Majesty the Queen pay an outstanding, historic visit to not only the Republic of Ireland, but to Northern Ireland, when she shook hands with Martin McGuinness and many other people. We have also seen power sharing and several important events in Northern Ireland which have been referred to already: for example, the G8 meeting was held there and Londonderry is the city of culture. There are many tourism opportunities in Northern Ireland, such as Giant’s causeway and the Titanic centre—there are very many reasons to go to Northern Ireland. We have seen so many changes, even just over the years I have been going there.
	It is also right to say that challenges remain, however. There is unfinished business in Northern Ireland and sadly it is still, in some ways, a divided society. For example, there are more peace walls there now than there were 10 years ago, which cannot be a good thing. There are still dissidents attempting to murder members of the security forces and, over the summer and during the flag protests at the end of last year, we saw so-called loyalists throwing bricks at police officers. That simply cannot be right.
	Much has been done, but this debate is about dealing with the past. How do we deal with the past? Can we ever do it successfully? There has been a call for an inquiry to be held into the Omagh atrocity, and there are powerful arguments for doing so, but there are also people who do not want such an inquiry because it would bring back the pain and rake over the past. It would risk prolonging the pain.
	Perhaps the only way to deal with the past is to build a better future. Since 2010, the Select Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, has been concentrating on the future. For example, it has been inquiring into and making recommendations on economic matters such as corporation tax and air passenger duty—which we shall discuss in a short while—in an attempt to cement the peace that has been achieved by building a better economy, and by giving people greater opportunities and allowing them to feel that the peace process has been worth while for them. This is about building a Province that is very different for present and future generations from what it was in the past.
	The Select Committee also considers security matters and issues relating to the past. For example, we are meeting Dr Richard Haass next Tuesday to discuss his work. We will also be meeting the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable to discuss the security situation. Shortly after that, we will meet the Secretary of State to discuss all those issues and more.
	One issue that the Committee cannot look into in any detail, because it is devolved, is that of education and schooling. I believe, however, that we need to make more progress on integrated education. We need to bring children together at the age of four, rather than separating them and allowing them to live separate lives. We need to show them that there is no difference between a Catholic and a Protestant, and that what differentiates us is the way we behave rather than the labels that are placed on us.

Kate Hoey: I thank the Chair of my Select Committee for giving way. It is important to remember when we talk about integrated education that many of Northern Ireland’s grammar schools are highly integrated. The idea that the only way of getting Catholics and Protestants to be educated together is through the introduction of integrated schools does not reflect what is actually happening.

Laurence Robertson: I accept that the hon. Lady knows an awful lot about this subject, and I accept her point about grammar schools. She will also be aware, however, of the turmoil surrounding the ability of children to qualify to go to those schools. I suggest that there is still a need to move the general principle of integrated education forward in the wider sense.

Brian Binley: My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech. I congratulate the Select Committee, which he chairs, on its work. I also congratulate my hon. Friends in the Democratic Unionist party on securing this timely debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to make progress on burying the past would be for Sinn Fein Members to come to this House and take part in debates such as these? It is a matter of great sadness that they do not do so. I appeal to my hon. Friend to make a plea to that effect—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Interventions must be short.

Laurence Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. That point was also raised earlier, and I agree entirely. I have in fact taken the matter to the very top, in that I have said to Mr Gerry Adams and Mr Martin McGuinness that that is exactly what they should be
	doing. They should be coming here to argue their case. They travel to Westminster and hold meetings here in this building, but they will not come to the Chamber to discuss these issues. They are not serving the people of Northern Ireland very well by pursuing that abstentionist policy. Almost a third of the Province is unrepresented here in this Chamber, which is a tragedy for the people of Northern Ireland, regardless of whether they are republicans or Unionists.

Oliver Colvile: As a fellow member of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he chairs it. Does he agree that we have begun to make progress, in that Sinn Fein has started to attend some meetings of the Select Committee, including when we are in Belfast? We have opened a dialogue of some sort. We have much further to go, but that will be down to my hon. Friend’s activities as well.

Laurence Robertson: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. It is true that Sinn Fein has started to give formal evidence to the Select Committee, and I regard that as progress. Despite what I just said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), I must point out that these things sometimes take a little while. There has been progress in that respect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) says, and I hope that it will continue because I see it as a positive move. It is sensible for Sinn Fein to make that move, but there are still a number of steps that it will have to take.
	I was talking about integrated education, and I am very keen on that concept. I attended a Church of England secondary school, and I am proud to have done so, but I must point out that Bolton in Lancashire is very different from West Belfast—as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker—and presents very different challenges. I want to see a society in Northern Ireland in which peace walls are no longer required, and in which we stop counting and publishing the percentages of Catholics and Protestants in organisations. We need to reach a point at which that does not matter.
	We must move towards a society in which, rather than segregating children almost at birth, we teach them to live together. That is the way to achieve a shared future, because a shared future involves sharing institutions and sharing lives. The peaceful future that we all want to build in Northern Ireland will not be secured through treaties or international agreements; it will be secured through changing hearts and minds. That is something that we must try to work towards.
	I have mentioned the violence in Northern Ireland over the summer and at the end of last year. I was there during the marches in mid-July, and I witnessed many thousands of people celebrating their culture. There was not a single problem among all those thousands of people. Of course, as ever, the 0.1% did cause problems and, unfortunately, those are the pictures that get flashed across the world. The Select Committee visited America a few months ago, and the people we spoke to told us how disconcerting it was to see the pictures of the flag protests and of the problems relating to marches. We had to point out to them that the problems were due to that 0.1% of the people. Unfortunately, however, those pictures that are flashed across the world lose revenue for Northern Ireland.
	They lose us tourists and inward investment, and that cannot be right. Those acts of violence cannot be right, whether they are the result of political ambitions related to republicanism or loyalism or the result of pure thuggery, which I suggest some of them were.
	Either way, we have to move forward and try to build a better Northern Ireland, so that this generation and future generations do not suffer as those in the past have done, in the ways that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley so graphically described earlier. To summarise, perhaps we can best deal with the past only by building a better future.

David Simpson: It is good to follow the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), and I congratulate him on the good work he has done as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Select Committee.
	It was L. P. Hartley who famously said of the past that it is
	“a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
	He was right in the sense that we should learn from past mistakes, either as individuals or collectively as a community, in order to ensure that they are not passed down to be repeated by a further generation. Perhaps because of the immediacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland, however, we have not yet reached the stage where we can describe the past as another country or as something foreign; it is not. There are tens of thousands of people, including hundreds of my own constituents, who live with the trauma caused by past events. They have lost loved ones—fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives—to the conflict, and that legacy of hurt is enduring, despite the progress made over the last decade or so. We owe it to our fellow citizens to ensure that they are at the heart of the transformation process that our society is undertaking. They cannot be left behind.
	In every sphere of life, people see things from different perspectives. If we ask two people to describe an event they both witnessed, we will often get two very different descriptions of it. If we did not, there would be no need for football commentators or current affairs television shows. This is especially the case in historical debate and discussion.
	When the premier of the People’s Republic of China, whose name I will not try to pronounce, was asked about the impact of the French revolution, he famously declared that it was “too early to say”—some 200 years after the event. We were tasked with addressing issues that happened within the living memory of most people in Northern Ireland. History is, and always will be, a contested field, and there will never be any agreed interpretation of historical events. This is the case in every society. In that regard, Northern Ireland is no different.
	Although there are differences of emphasis and differences of approach to the interpretation of past events that occurred in Northern Ireland, I believe it essential to establish a basic framework of first principles. Truth is not a relative concept; it exists independently of historical visions or approaches. Without the establishment and widespread acceptance of such truth, we cannot
	adequately hope to address the legacy of pain and suffering that still exist in our society as a consequence of past events.
	The first and most obvious statement of truth is that not everyone in Northern Ireland is a victim. There are some who would seek to claim that every single person in our country is a victim. That is an insidious concept for two reasons. First, it diminishes the genuine suffering and pain of those who were directly affected by the actions of terrorists during the troubles. Secondly, it elevates those who engaged in criminal acts to equal status with those whose suffering they caused in the first place. Terrorists of whatever variety or hue do not exist on the same moral plane as those whom they terrorised. They cannot ever enjoy such standing.
	Secondly, although general attitudes in society shape people’s outlook and perspective, we must accept that people are ultimately individuals and that, as such, they must be responsible for their individual actions. Society, even one as divided and conflict-riven as Northern Ireland was, did not make people engage in murder or other such crimes. While we are not all victims, we are also not all collectively responsible for the actions of terrorists. No one made Sean Kelly and Thomas Begley plant a bomb on the Shankill road that murdered nine innocent people, as we have already heard, and ultimately cost Mr Begley his own life. That applies to any other atrocity carried out by either side of the community in Northern Ireland. To latch on to the concept of society and to use it to justify such barbaric acts is a measure designed only to placate the conscience of evil people and to lay the blame for their actions at the door of the huge majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland. That is much like a wife-beater saying that his unfortunate spouse made him do it. For terrorists to blame society is a lazy get-out clause, with no moral basis at all.
	The third principle we must adhere to is that those who engaged in armed insurrection against the state are in no position to demand the recovery of openness and truth from anyone while they lie about what they did. We have reached the absurd point in Northern Ireland today where the President of Sinn Fein would seek to deny he ever was a member of the Provisional IRA, yet would then with a straight face demand truth and honesty from the state. People cannot lie through their teeth while at the same time demanding truth. It is time that Sinn Fein grew up and accepted the fact that they will never—I say never—be allowed to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland.
	You will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the intensive talks process involving Dr Richard Haass is currently under way in the Province. I suspect that of all the challenges he faces, dealing with the legacy of the past will be the greatest, but I believe it is essential that we do so in a way that is victim-centred and founded on principles that are rooted in justice, honesty and the truth.

Oliver Colvile: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), along with his Democratic Unionist colleagues, on securing the debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) on his new post as shadow Front-Bench spokesman on
	Northern Ireland. I have to say that I hope he will have his shadow job for a very long time, but only because it would help him to gain a better understanding of what happens in Northern Ireland. I have been a member of the Northern Ireland Select Committee for the last three years, and I certainly think I have a better understanding now than I did beforehand. Let me also pay tribute to the previous Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office, who has now gone to the Department for Work and Pensions. He was incredibly helpful to me and did a very good job. I know that his successor, the former Defence Minister, will do an equally good job.
	As I have said, I have been a member of the Northern Ireland Select Committee for the last three years, so I have been able to see first hand some of the real problems that confront many families, having been through the experience of seeing their loved ones killed, murdered or maimed. I attended a number of meetings with such families and I was particularly struck by our meeting with the victims of Kingsmill—a horrendous story. While visiting Northern Ireland, I took the opportunity to look at some of the paperwork from historic inquests. Reading some of these accounts of what happened—there were lots of them—was incredibly moving.
	I want to pay tribute to the armed forces—of course, I would do that, because I represent a constituency that is a naval garrison city—and to the Royal Marines, who have certainly given their lives in support of ensuring peace in Northern Ireland.

Bob Stewart: Speaking as an ex-member of the armed forces who frequently went to Northern Ireland, I would like to pay full tribute to those people wearing uniforms who lived in Northern Ireland and who had to leave their families behind as they went out, day after day, to do their duty. Risk is something that we normally do not have to deal with, but the courage of people in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment or the Police Service of Northern Ireland was quite breathtaking.

Oliver Colvile: I thank my hon. Friend for his moving tribute. I pay tribute to him as well, because I know that he experienced some very difficult times when he was serving in Northern Ireland. There were bombings, including the discotheque bombing.

David Simpson: May I add to the hon. Gentleman’s list the Northern Ireland Prison Service, especially in view of the fact that Mr David Black was murdered recently in my constituency?

David Simpson: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman.
	The riots in Northern Ireland were one of the main stories during the summer, along with the flags issue. I welcome Dr Haass’s efforts to find solutions, because I found the riots quite appalling. On 12 July last year I visited Belfast and saw the loyalist parade that was taking place. I learned a great deal from all that. I witnessed some of the marching at first hand, and observed that a number of Roman Catholics and nationalists found it difficult to accept.
	If we are to find a solution to the past, we must recognise that Northern Ireland now has a devolved Assembly with its own responsibilities. One of the problems
	that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may encounter is the difficulty of ensuring that she does not tread too much on what the devolved Assembly and the devolved Executive are seeking to do.
	A key issue is the feeling among some of those aged between 16 and 24 that they are not really involved in the peace process. They do not understand it, and they do not have a sense of engagement with it. They are the NEETs—those who are not in education, employment or training. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who is an excellent chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, made a serious point about the importance of improving education and skills, and it is in that connection that I have argued in the Committee that it is time for a review of the progress made following the Belfast agreement, or Good Friday agreement. I hope that Dr Haass will conduct such a review, because it is the only way in which we shall be able to reach come conclusions in regard to what else may happen. Before I was elected to the House, I ran a small public relations company which advised developers on how to obtain help with public consultation. I think there is a very big job to be done—the job of engaging with small, deprived communities in order to understand what they are up to. We need to think about the likely impact on those youngsters.
	Another key issue is the need to rebalance the Northern Irish economy. A good 70% to 80% of people still work in the public sector, and I am sure that they do an extremely good job, but I think that unless more people in the private sector invest in the economy, things will be very difficult. It is important for us to create opportunities and jobs if we can possibly do so.
	We must retain our commitment to striving for peace. I strongly support the peace campaign, and also the work done by both Tony Blair and, more importantly, John Major, who kicked off the whole peace process. Before I became a member of the Select Committee, I was very much aware of what was going on in South Africa, where there was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. That would not work in this instance, because many people would feel intimidated by the idea of becoming involved in such a process, and would fear for their own futures.
	I believe that we need to expand the university technical colleges, which are working very well; there is one in my constituency. We also need to increase the amount of development, and to encourage the Americans to invest in Northern Ireland, so that we can create private sector jobs and bring about aspiration and hope.

Alasdair McDonnell: I thank those who tabled the motion for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject today. I should like to think that the debate will lay some foundations for the work of Dr Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan.
	Let me begin by endorsing the honest comments of the Rev. David Clements, who said this morning that neither the past nor victims should be used by anyone to advance a selfish political agenda. Let me also draw Members’ attention, as others have done already, to the fact that today is the 20th anniversary of one of the most horrific events of the troubles. I offer my sympathy,
	and the unconditional sympathy and support of the SDLP, to all the innocent people who were killed in that horrific Shankill road bombing.
	Dr Richard Haass has, in essence, been invited to help us to sort out critically important unfinished business dating back to the time of the Good Friday agreement, more than 15 years ago. We are grateful to him and his team for agreeing to help us. Our failure to grasp the issues of flags, parading and the past has cost us dear, summer in and summer out, year in and year out, during most of those 15 years.
	The SDLP’s firm goal in the Haass negotiations is a further comprehensive agreement that would grab the imagination of people in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, further afield—and would inspire hope and create ambition for the future. Not least, such an agreement would send a resounding message to potential investors that Northern Ireland is an even more secure and stable place to which to bring business, thus creating the jobs and prosperity that we dearly need. A piecemeal, temporary, cobbled-together agreement would sell Northern Ireland short and dash the hopes of our people, who look to us, the politicians, to deliver meaningful change.

Stephen Lloyd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that real progress was made 10 years ago in Derry/Londonderry, when both communities worked together to ensure that parades in that great town did not cause the strife and difficulties they are causing in Belfast?

Alasdair McDonnell: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. All the difficulties have been resolved in Derry. Everything is now a celebration, and the contention surrounding the parades has gone. Derry’s month as UK City of Culture has been an outstanding success story. I congratulate the people of Derry, and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who represents them.
	We in the SDLP seek from Dr Haass—in broad terms—a bigger and better agreement. We want an agreement that transcends the narrow issues of parades and flags, and addresses the past in an expansive way; an agreement that celebrates rather than denigrates the expression of culture, allegiance and political identity across the communities in Northern Ireland; an agreement that promotes healing and reconciliation, and enables us to grow up politically and develop mature politics in the atmosphere of growing mutual respect that was promised in the Good Friday agreement, after which—in 1998—the people voted for
	“reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust”
	and for
	“partnership, equality and mutual respect”.
	Only a radical change of attitude all round that embraces the values and ambitions of that agreement will deliver the successful outcome that Northern Ireland needs so much. Surely, given ambition, flexibility and resolve, that much is not beyond our reach. We in the SDLP are up for the challenge posed by Dr Haass and Professor Meghan O’Sullivan.
	In recent weeks—I put my hand up at this point, as indeed we all must, because we have all made mistakes and must now join others in making progress—we have
	sought to make our small contribution to the healing process by addressing an issue that has been raised in the House from time to time. Some months ago, our councillors in Newry voted to retain the name of a local play park that the council had named after an IRA hunger striker 10 years earlier. Our councillors genuinely believed that if the name were allowed to remain, a line would be drawn in the sand and no other public spaces would be similarly named in future. In local terms, perhaps, that was a pragmatic decision—it was, perhaps, understandable in terms of local government. Our representatives acted entirely in good faith. They reassured me, one and all, that it was neither in their thinking nor was it their intention to cause hurt or distress to anyone. I want now to reaffirm the SDLP’s position. Our position is that no public place or public space should be named after any person involved in state or paramilitary violence of any sort.
	The issues addressed in the Haass process can be resolved only on the basis of mutual respect, equality and parity of esteem. The SDLP will not be found wanting in generosity or determination to bring about a comprehensive agreement that will be an example to divided communities everywhere. The atmosphere for these talks would be greatly improved, and Belfast traders would breathe a huge sigh of relief, if the loyalist flag protesters called off their planned demonstrations in the city in the run-up to Christmas and if the Orange Order agreed to call a halt to its continuing irresponsible protests at Ardoyne, which are resulting in a policing operation that the PSNI estimates is costing £50,000 a day—which amounts to £5 million over the period. That would have paid for 200 or more young teachers, 200 nurses and perhaps even 200 extra police that we so badly need

Jeffrey M Donaldson: The point the hon. Gentleman makes about the economy is an important one. Is it not therefore a matter of regret—this is not an issue for this House but it is nevertheless worth placing on the record—that yesterday the Minister for the Environment, who belongs to the SDLP, refused to move a Bill that could transform our planning system and help attract a lot more investment into Northern Ireland? Should not the SDLP act on its own words?

Alasdair McDonnell: At this point, may I welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to your place and say what a privilege it is to speak in this Chamber under your chairmanship?
	I will respond later to the comment that was just made, because it is a clear example of what is wrong, rather than what is right.
	The past is a more intractable and complex issue than flags and parades and it casts a long shadow in Northern Ireland. By far the best and most coherent blueprint for tackling the past is the report of Lord Eames and Denis Bradley. The group jointly chaired by Lord Eames and Denis Bradley carried out an immense amount of work, publishing a report that ran to almost 200 pages and carried more than 30 main recommendations. It is unacceptable that such a balanced and carefully considered document should apparently be forgotten—gathering dust on a shelf somewhere—because of the controversy that attached to one of its recommendations in relation to ex gratia payments. The SDLP believes Eames-Bradley
	still has much to commend it. All would benefit from giving it the reconsideration it has well-earned and is due, while, of course, bringing additional ideas of their own to the table.
	There are many among us who would wish to forget the past, but there are many victims out there whose lives have been wrecked and who cannot move on without closure.

Margaret Ritchie: Nearly 20 years ago six people from my constituency of South Down were murdered in cold blood at O’Toole’s bar in Loughinisland, and nearly 20 years later the victims and families of those six good men have still not received justice or an answer as to why they were killed, and those who carried out this heinous crime have still not been brought to justice. Does my hon. Friend agree that the PSNI must now complete its investigation, based on the work of the former police ombudsman, so that families have a pathway to justice and truth?

Alasdair McDonnell: I agree with my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I also agree with others who are whispering from a sedentary position that there are many victims out there whose lives have been wrecked and who cannot move on without closure and without answers. I do not distinguish between people based on what their politics were or what their religion was: innocent victims are innocent victims.
	Unfortunately, time and again the past comes back to haunt us. I am told that this evening “Channel 4 News” will bring us some horrible truths about the past in Northern Ireland, and on Friday a book will be published called “Lethal Allies”, chronicling some of the criminal collusions between renegade elements of the security forces and loyalist killers. I am given to believe that, among its revelations, it will throw some light on the horrific murder of a former colleague of mine, Dinny Mullen. Dinny was the father of my friend and colleague, Denise Fox. Dinny was targeted and murdered in his own home because he was an SDLP activist. His crime was that he was the election agent for my colleague, Seamus Mallon, a former Member of this House.
	There is a murky past out there, and while I must put on record my view that the vast majority of the members of the RUC—as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said earlier—and the security forces, including many who are now Members of this House, served with integrity, honour and distinction, a small number of others acted in the shadows and they dishonoured that honourable vast majority. They acted in a way that was no better than those they were attempting to oppose—the terrorists they were challenging. They acted well outside the law, and lines of accountability were blurred and, indeed, ignored. They acted directly and indirectly in acts of terrorism. The gang that murdered Dinny Mullen went on within a short space of time, and with little challenge by police or security forces, to murder well in excess of 100 people, including members of the Miami show band. We need to get closure on a lot of these issues.
	I want to say a few words about the two Government co-guarantors and about an earlier point that was made. The British and Irish Governments, who are co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement, must be bold, decisive and vigilant in standing up to the narrow self-interest of the DUP and Sinn Fein, which the right hon. Member
	for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) referred to. The DUP and Sinn Fein made a savage attack on what was otherwise a very positive and creative planning Bill. They tried to hollow it out and destroy it, and the Minister responsible had no choice but to dismantle it. This was petty party self-interest to destroy the Bill.
	The two Governments must remain centrally involved in the Haass process and be prepared to underwrite the comprehensive agreement that I hope we will have, with good will and mutual respect. I compliment Peter Robinson, leader of the DUP, on what he has said in two recent very significant recent speeches. With attitudes such as that, we can achieve a further agreement and achieve peace.

Stephen Lloyd: It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I thank the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and his party colleagues for introducing this important debate. As they know, I am half-Northern Irish and have made many visits to Northern Ireland ever since I was a child—since the beginning of the troubles. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s profound belief that we have to manage the past properly and fairly if we are ever to have a positive future. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who made a very thoughtful contribution. I agree that we must try to move forward in a much more inclusive way if Northern Ireland is ever to have the wonderful, prosperous and peaceful future that all of us in the House wish for it.
	Having said that, in Northern Ireland the past is always a challenge. Although I am only half-Northern Irish—and half-English—I know that it is an incredibly delicate area to tread in, and I also know that that is one of the reasons why there have been so many piecemeal attempts to try to get on top of the past. In some ways, I think that Northern Ireland has succeeded. When compared with the situation of only a few years ago, the recent progress has been substantial, but the complexity of Northern Ireland, its past and the troubles cannot be resolved easily or simply, because otherwise that would have happened many years ago under the previous Government. Strong movement in one direction tends greatly to upset people on the other side of the divide.
	A good example of that, to which the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) alluded, was the Eames-Bradley report, which I thought was outstanding, detailed and fair. It tried honourably to address the immense complexity of the sectarian divide, but we all know the result: it was shelved, ostensibly for one reason. My personal view is that that reason was used as an excuse to shelve the whole report, which was disappointing. However, the report is still in a drawer somewhere in Whitehall, so perhaps one day we can bring it out, re-evaluate it and use much of its learning, because the Eames-Bradley report was a good way forward.
	On the one hand, I am optimistic about the Haass initiative, which I think is a good, positive step. On the other hand, however, I am slightly depressed about it because Dr Richard Haass’s consultation has come about because we have yet again reached an impasse. My hon. Friends from Northern Ireland will know that
	“impasse” is a French word, and impasse may be a common occurrence in Northern Ireland, for the reasons that we know. I am glad that the five political parties have endorsed and supported Haass. After he has spoken to people, including the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, but more importantly the political parties in Northern Ireland, and his group presents some recommendations, I am pretty sure that not everyone will agree with all of them, as the day when that is not the case in Northern Ireland will be the day the Liberals sweep to sunny uplands and have a majority in government. That will take a few years yet; I like to be an optimist—I am a Liberal. However, I hope that when Haass’s recommendations come forward, we will engage with them properly and seriously.

Lady Hermon: First, may I congratulate our newest Deputy Speaker? I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	May I double-check something with the hon. Gentleman, as I did with the shadow Secretary of State? Will the Lib Dem wing of the coalition Government make a separate submission to the Haass talks? If so, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it will be published?

Stephen Lloyd: The hon. Lady raises an important point. The honest truth is that we are still considering the matter, but if we make a separate submission, it certainly will be made public. I sound as though I might be obfuscating only because I am not entirely sure that, separate from our colleagues in the coalition Government, we would have anything productive to say, but I promise her that if we do make a submission, it will be made public.
	When we receive the Haass report, I hope and trust that all of us in the House, and particularly in Northern Ireland, will do what is necessary to move forward on key and extremely difficult issues. As I am someone who perhaps is not as steeped in the issues as some hon. Members from Northern Ireland, I imagine that there would be nothing more irritating than for me to pretend that those issues were anything other than challenging and complicated.
	I was struck by a recent quote from Amnesty International. I do not always agree with everything that Amnesty says, even though I have been a member for around 30 years. I would, however, like to repeat some comments from Amnesty International so that they will be recorded in Hansard because I think that they sum up the problem. Amnesty International says:
	“the piecemeal approach to investigations adopted in Northern Ireland is too diffuse and too incomplete to provide a comprehensive picture of all the violations and abuses that occurred during the decades of political violence. Inherent limitations within the mechanisms…have meant that much of the truth remains hidden while those in positions of responsibility have remained shielded. It has also contributed to a failure to develop a shared public understanding and recognition of the abuses committed by all sides.”
	Without in any way taking sides, I believe that that is a true statement. From my relatives and my relatives’ friends from both sides of the divide, I know well that in the Northern Ireland that I love so much, there is often a lack of understanding and appreciation, and a sense of “more evil was done to us than to you”. As someone
	who has one foot in Northern Ireland and one foot outside, my observation is that both sides in their own way are right and both sides in their own way are wrong. That is the tragedy, and that is why I tread delicately but sincerely. I treat with profound seriousness the shadow role on Northern Ireland that I have in my party. I profoundly respect the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and his party for calling this debate as it has demonstrated the strengths and weaknesses of the whole challenge in Northern Ireland.
	I hope that the Haass report will move matters forward. As an observer, I think that the impasse has hit the Executive—and has done so for a while. It may equally have affected our own Government. We have got stuck, and that is unfortunate, but I hope that the Haass consultation, which will see him and his group talking to all the key individuals and parties in Northern Ireland, will lead to progress.
	Finally, I pay tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The RUC and the security services had an incredibly difficult role, but they played an incredibly important part in ultimately defeating terrorism. The Royal Ulster Constabulary was not perfect in every way and the security services were not perfect. Mistakes were made and a tiny proportion of people clearly worked in the shadows, but overall, without the bravery of the RUC and the security services, Northern Ireland would have lost to terrorism, and that would have been wrong. Both my uncle and my grandfather were in the RUC, and my uncle survived a couple of assassination attempts. That demonstrates the importance of this debate and the importance of Northern Ireland, because while my uncle and grandfather were Catholic, the paradox is that, on the one hand, the IRA tried to blow them up a couple of times and, on the other hand, a section of the Loyalists would not trust them as far as they could throw them. That sums up the challenges facing us in Northern Ireland.
	I hope that a positive and productive debate such as this, and moving forward in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury outlined, leading towards the Haass discussions, will mean that, within the next few months, Northern Ireland will begin to move forward from the past in a more positive way. It is timely and necessary, and the blockage should come to an end.

William McCrea: It is a pleasure to see you occupy the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I wish you great wisdom as you give leadership to the House.
	I thank my colleagues for tabling the motion at a time when many of our fellow citizens are gathering with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) to remember the tragedy of the Shankill bombing 20 years ago today. On that day, many innocent lives were lost because of the atrocity committed by the Provisional IRA.
	I acknowledge that Dr Richard Haass and Professor Meghan O’Sullivan have been given the task of seeking a way forward on a number of important issues that have divided our community for years, and I know that the House wishes them well in their endeavours. Today, however, my colleagues and I believe that there are issues that cannot be airbrushed out of existence, as
	some would wish, as if they had never happened. Nor must we let Sinn Fein and its republican fellow travellers rewrite the narrative of our troubled past in Northern Ireland.
	I pay tribute to the thousands of men and women who donned the uniform and stood in the gap between community and anarchy throughout the long years of IRA terror. Those soldiers who patrolled the roads of Ulster over the years, alongside the RUC/RUCR, GC, USC, UDR and RIR, did so with valour and distinction. They rightly deserve our deep gratitude, having faced gangsters and thugs who reigned over 30 years of terror on a law-abiding population. We must never forget the sacrifice of our security forces and their bravery. We must also never forget the sacrifice of their families—mothers and fathers, sons and daughters—who anxiously waited, hoping that their loved ones would return home safely—alas, many of them did not.
	The deep sense of loss still felt in the hearts of many innocent victims of violence across our Province today is raw, and no one except those who have walked this dark and lonely path can understand the pain. But this anguish has been made worse by the coat-trailing exercises of the republican movement, and Sinn Fein in particular, over recent months. The leader of my party has on many occasions gone out on a limb, seeking to reach the hand of friendship to nationalists and republicans in an effort to build a stronger community spirit and give the generations to come a better future and a prosperous Province of which we can all be proud. But, sadly, many Sinn Fein representatives just cannot leave their failed past, while others pretend they have—that is, of course, until the mask slips. Yes, some politicians speak piously of a shared future, but in reality the proof is that they cannot bear to see Orange feet walk the Queen’s highway. They cannot even share a road in Belfast or Portadown for a few minutes to allow a small contingent of Orangemen to walk home after a day when Protestants celebrate their culture. The reality is that when we scrape beneath the surface, we find that the old leopard has not changed his spots.
	As Mr Robinson sought to build a peaceful future, Sinn Fein representatives such as Gerry Kelly defied the law by hanging on to police Land Rovers in north Belfast, and on another occasion, they celebrated the escape from the Maze prison, in which a prison officer was murdered. Sinn Fein coat-trailed through Castlederg and north Belfast, lauding as heroes those who blew themselves up with their own bombs, leaving a trail of innocent blood across the Province. Today people gather to remember the slaughter of the innocent on the Shankill, but no world attention will be focused on this event of course: they were only Protestants—innocent men, women and children, slaughtered by the blatantly sectarian IRA.
	In reality, the authorities here on the mainland, as well as international Governments, have granted favoured status to those who murdered and maimed, while the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland were left to suffer and then told simply to move on. The Prime Minister made an apology to the families in Londonderry. The media spent hours of air time propagating one single event in the history of our Province just as if no one else had endured any injustice over the years of turmoil and trouble. No apology has been given to the law-abiding Unionist majority for the years they were
	plagued with IRA terrorism. I have no doubt that our security forces were well able to crush these terrorists, but political expedience would not allow them to do so. We are expected, and were expected, to suffer in silence, while world leaders kowtowed to, and wined and dined, Adams and McGuinness. Over the years, I have wept and comforted many families of innocent victims, and I carry in my heart deep wounds because of what the IRA has done. However, if we allow hatred and bitterness to take over our lives, we destroy ourselves and allow the enemy a victory over us.
	The IRA were terrorists, formed as an organisation with the aim of removing the British from Northern Ireland and bringing about the unification of Ireland by force. They were doomed to fail, not because the Governments of the day stood up for the rights of the people, but because tens of thousands of ordinary people were determined to remain part of the United Kingdom and exercised their democratic right accordingly. Do not forget that Ministers from the Fianna Fail governing party in the Irish Republic diverted funds intended as emergency aid illegally to import weapons directly for the provos. Surely it is time for an unreserved apology from the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic for the actions of a former Government who helped to spawn and support IRA terrorist gangs. An apology from the Irish Republic’s Government would go some distance to assure the Unionist community that the pain of innocent victims of terror has been recognised. How long we will have to wait for such an apology, I do not know, but time will tell.
	The Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,706 people up to 2001. Of those, 497 were civilian casualties, 183 were members of the UDR, 455 came from regiments of the British Army and 271 were members of the RUC. Of its victims, 340 were Northern Ireland Roman Catholics, 794 were Northern Ireland Protestants, and 572 were not from Northern Ireland. The university of Ulster also states that the IRA lost 276 members during the troubles. However, in 132 of those cases, IRA members either caused their own deaths as a result of hunger strikes, premature bombing accidents and so on, or were murdered due to allegations of having worked for the security forces.
	Let me put the record straight in the House. The IRA was not fighting a just war, but through bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, punishment beatings of civilians, torture, extortion, robberies, racketeering and so on, it forced successive British Governments into endless concessions. Those who were involved in terrorism should be called terrorists and must not be granted a similar status to those they terrorised, irrespective of what part of the community they come from. The IRA terrorist made a deliberate choice to join a terrorist organisation. Their victims and the families are worthy of justice, but their chance of getting that seems small. If the IRA claims it was a war, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris whom, on 20 February 2005, the then Justice Minister of the Irish Republic, Mr Michael McDowell, publicly named as members of the IRA army council, should be hauled before the war crimes tribunal for their acts of brutal crimes against humanity.
	Some suggest that a truth commission should be enough to satisfy the innocent victims, but what would that achieve? When asked about his terrorist past, Gerry
	Adams looked into the camera and quietly, brazenly denied that he had ever been in the IRA. Martin McGuinness was exposed by the report into the events in Londonderry, but he told the Saville inquiry:
	“I wish to make it clear that I will not provide the Inquiry with the identities of other members of the IRA on 30th January 1972 or confirm the roles played by such persons whose names are written down and shown to me...As a Republican I am simply not prepared to give such information.”
	Yet that same person had the audacity and the cheek to welcome the £192 million report into Bloody Sunday pointing the finger at soldiers while dismissing the findings of the same report in regard to his being identified as having a submachine gun in Londonderry. Now they talk about prosecuting soldiers who put their necks on the line to preserve life in Northern Ireland, yet those others are lauded and applauded worldwide.
	There will be no films or documentaries made about the Shankill bomb, even though there have been bloody Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays that must never be forgotten by this House. We must ask: why did the innocent have to die on Ulster soil? Was it because there was an acceptable level of violence, as was said, or because, as a previous Prime Minister said, his Government had no strategic interest in Northern Ireland?
	We need closure, but we must not allow republicans to rewrite history or romanticise their murderous campaign. No one can understand the nightmare that the people of Northern Ireland have been through. They were terrorised in their kitchens and bedrooms, while walking on the streets as they went to restaurants and hotels, or while worshiping in their churches. They left their children in the morning not knowing whether they would ever come home to see them again in the evening. We lived through that. It was reality. We need the truth; we need justice. No one should be too high or mighty to escape the rule of law.

Mark Durkan: Like other Members, I want to say how pleased I am to be here today under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I obviously cannot agree with all the terms and tone of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), but I share his strong sense of solidarity with those gathered today in sombre commemoration of the terrible Shankill bombing. Equally, we will all lend our solidarity to those families who go through next week’s anniversary of the Greysteel attack, and all the others who lost loved ones, sometimes in lonely deaths that are not remembered in the commemorations of the landmark atrocities of the troubles, because they, too, have their feelings touched or stirred by commemorations such as today’s and by debates such as this. I also concur with him completely on the need to repudiate any pretence that some sort of claim about a just war can be made in relation to the IRA campaign, or indeed any other campaign of republican violence over recent decades.
	It is supposed to be a Russian proverb that to dwell on the past is to lose an eye, but to forget the past is to lose both eyes. That is why we must properly acknowledge and address issues of the past. It is not enough, as some people sometimes suggest, to draw a line under the past
	and move on, or just to find some glib form of closure. Too many people are burdened by the past, carrying hurt and feelings that are all too present. They cannot just decide that they are well adjusted victims and move on when they are confronted with denial about what actually happened to them and about the nature of the crimes committed against them, their loved ones or their community. In those circumstances, we cannot treat victims as though some are well adjusted and some are badly adjusted because of where they are on the reconciliation scale according to some commentator or other.
	We have to confront the past properly if it is not to be repeated. We currently have a group of dissidents who are basically happy to say that they are continuing the methods and principles of struggle pursued by the Provisional IRA. Thankfully, many of those who were involved in the Provisional IRA now choose to repudiate and reject the violence pursued by these dissidents, but it is important that current and future generations know the truth about the nature of the Provisional IRA campaign. Those who were involved in the Provisional IRA cannot give themselves some sort of moral superiority over the violence carried out by today’s dissidents, which is targeted in the same vicious and reckless way.
	Other hon. Members—I want to acknowledge the opening statement by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) in particular—talked about the breakdown of victims in that sense, but it was also important that he read out the names, particularly the names of those whose deaths are being commemorated today, so that we remember not only the numbers, but the “whoness” of those people. They were loved and loving members of families and communities. That needs to be remembered as well.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) referred to the fact that the Pat Finucane Centre will soon publish a book called “Lethal Allies” by Anne Cadwallader, which looks at some very dark aspects of the troubles. It relates to a number of cases—10 in particular—that have been investigated by the Historical Enquiries Team, but the reports have never been made public because the HET reports are offered as the private property of the families. That is a weakness that I think we need to address. I agree with the point the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) made, picking up from Amnesty International. That is one of the reasons why I tabled amendments to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to give the Secretary of State new powers and new responsibilities to do more to consolidate the value of the HET’s work and draw on its work. It should not just be left to the Pat Finucane Centre or somebody else who happens to have had the reports shared with them. That is something that we, as a Parliament, should take more responsibility for. The truth about many of those deaths and murders is coming out now in different ways, but the fact is that here in this House untruths were told about many of those deaths and murders. The claims of my colleagues Seamus Mallon, John Hume, Joe Hendron and Eddie McGrady about the dirty war, and our concerns about intelligence not being properly shared or used, about people not being apprehended and about collusion, were all denied. But the truth shone through in the De Silva report on the Finucane murder and it will shine through in the book I mentioned as well.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South said, some of the victims were targeted by loyalist gangs, which included some members who served concurrently in the security forces. Those victims were targeted not because they were involved in the IRA or anything else, but because they were obviously seen as uppity Fenians—they had been associated with the civil rights movement, were involved in the SDLP, were buying property and developing businesses, so they were put down. It is clear that the people specifically targeted in their homes and cars came into that class. Others, of course—including members of the security forces themselves—were more randomly targeted.
	Other Members have paid tribute to members of the security forces. Let us remember that some of those lost their lives in attacks that could have been prevented had intelligence been shared and acted on. However, there was a warped game going on, in which some inside the security forces—particularly in the intelligence services—put the long war intelligence game ahead of the immediate protection of the lives of civilians and members of the security forces.
	Collusion was not just something whereby agents of the state allowed loyalist attacks to happen; they also allowed republican attacks and servants of the state and people in the community to be killed. That truth needs to be told. If we do not have the truth about the dirty war, we will be settling for a dirty peace. If we do not have the truth about the viciousness and nastiness of all the violence that took place from all the paramilitaries, we will be selling future generations a false narrative about the experience of the past.
	I was amazed to be told by a young man in my own city that the IRA only ever killed so-called “legitimate targets”—only those in the security forces and only in the high heat of active service incidents. That, of course, is completely untrue. It is one of the reasons why we need a proper truth process about the past to spell things out. Will we get the truth from the victim makers? No, but we need at least to gather and consolidate the truth from the victims. They need to know that their truth will be remembered and acknowledged. They must not die with the burden of remembrance heavy on their shoulders, as it is for too many of them.
	We have to resolve the issue with a proper framework for dealing with the past. It will not be a one-size-fits-all approach, and it will mean that we politicians have to face up to our failures on this issue. Ever since the Good Friday agreement, every time there were talks and an impasse, both my party and I made proposals about the need to address the past. We were constantly faced with evasion, both from the two Governments and from other parties.
	As I was told by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), the Secretary of State at the time, the reason why there was nothing in the 2003 talks in Hillsborough for victims and the past was that both Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionist party were absolutely clear that there should not be. The past was not to be touched and there was to be nothing for victims in that deal, which was meant to be a breakthrough.
	There was a good speech from the Opposition Front Bench today, but we need to remember that the last Government produced the most insulting effort on the past that anyone could have—the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. We were told by the then Secretary of
	State, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), that the Bill was about bringing closure, but it would have given all sorts of secret immunity certificates to all sorts of people. In fact, the only people who might have been prosecuted or sent to jail for any past crimes in Northern Ireland would have been any journalists or victims who reported or speculated on those who might have got one of those certificates, who might have been at a tribunal and what might have been involved. That was a gross insult.

Stephen Lloyd: I would like to hear more from my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the Haass initiative is absolutely crucial, and that if all the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Government dropped the ball, that would be another blow and another impasse?

Mark Durkan: I think that the Haass process really does give us another chance. At least the parties are gathered together and we are engaged in a process. Previously we have been arguing about whether there should be a process or the shape of it. People resiled from the very good recommendations in Eames Bradley, and I think that the Haass process will look at those. The HET has already done good work in a lot of areas, but it has not been consolidated and built up. A lot of good and strong recommendations in Eames Bradley need to be revised and revisited.
	There is also very good work going on in the cultural sector. I think of Theatre of Witness, which has done so much to portray the true stories and experiences of people, whether loyalists, republicans, innocent victims, members of the security forces, prison staff, or whoever. Those true stories are all brought together compellingly, not in any controlled or contrived balance but in a very powerful and emotional way. That is a strong way of helping to discharge us from the past so that people can see truth instead of injustice and reconciliation instead of retribution.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on achieving your position and wish you well in your job for the future.
	I also congratulate the shadow Secretary of State and welcome him to his new post. He is only 14 days into the job and already finding his way in what could be a very difficult portfolio. We are a bit disappointed that the shadow Minister of State, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), is unable to be with us because he is away on parliamentary duties. I think he would use the phrase “erudite tones” of the debate if he were here. It is a pity that he is not, and we are obviously disappointed to miss his contribution.
	I recently attended Irish Fest in Milwaukee, USA, where I highlighted the other side to the history that many of Irish descent and many of Ulster descent had learnt from the propaganda and an often slanted media view. Americans and those from mainland USA watch films like “The Devil’s Own”, which have a degree of artistic licence that I fear greatly rewrites history. These and other stories make it seem as though 302 RUC men and women—men and women with the George Cross—were not human beings with families and lives but simply moving “legitimate target” signs; or make it
	seem as though 30 prison officers and 763 armed forces members were simply numbers on a score sheet, not people whose spouses and children still feel the devastating loss to this day. These histories and films would glibly portray a prison break as a great lark and not take into account the lives that were destroyed by the loss of a father and husband. One of those was my constituent Mr Ferris, and other people were shot and injured as a result of that escape. Never portrayed in a film is a scene where a busy fish shop is bombed with no warning on a busy Saturday, killing one terrorist and nine people, including two children, and injuring 57 other people. Nor do we see depicted the unveiling of a plaque in memory of this terrorist, yet that is the legacy that we are dealing with in Northern Ireland today, as so ably laid out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson).
	This is history. It should not be rewritten to glorify what were nothing more than acts of evil. I watched the snippets of the Shankill bombing and saw one of the bombers on the one hand apologising but, on the other hand, stating that he was proud to be unveiling a plaque in memory of his fellow murderer. That certainly stirs up the feelings of anger and loss in communities that are determined that they cannot and should not let their heartbreaking histories be displayed in a light that would dull the horrific nature of what has taken place.

Ian Paisley Jnr: How does my hon. Friend think that people would feel if anyone in the Unionist community were to suggest that next week a commemoration was held to acknowledge and to celebrate what happened at Greysteel, when eight innocent people were slaughtered? How would he feel if we decided that there should a band parade and a celebration? What would that say about this community, and does not it say the very same about nationalists and republicans whenever they decide to do that about the Shankill road bombing?

Jim Shannon: I thank my hon. Friend, who makes the point exactly. That would annoy me no end, as it would annoy everybody in this Chamber and everyone right across the whole of Northern Ireland. It does a disservice to every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland who has ever suffered loss on either side of the troubles. It does a disservice to those who are rehabilitated and living with injuries caused by the troubles, and to those who work hard to see the past for what it was and still try to find a way forward.
	I want to make it clear that I believe there is a way forward for Northern Ireland, because I am positive and always try to be so. I would even go so far as to say that Northern Ireland is at long last on a journey forward, but it is not an easy task. There are many bumps in the road and many hurts that must not be whitewashed, and must be sensitively handled. Sometimes that happens, but a lot of the time it does not. Make no mistake: there are tensions. They are stirred up in all communities by agendas that would not seek to move forward while ever remembering the past, but that would seek to throw us into turmoil once again.
	The removal of the Union flag from city hall is one such tension-stirring issue. There was no doubt about the strength of feeling in favour of retaining the flag. I
	asked people at Irish Fest in the United States of America how they would feel if they were asked to remove their flag at the Alamo. They would never do it, and yet the people of Belfast had it enforced on them in the name of progress. That is not progress: it is not now and it will not be so in the future. It is disrespectful. We are trying to engage with those on the ground to ensure that it does not derail the good that has been done thus far.
	The Haass talks will, I hope, be positive. I would like to think that they will pave the way for another step forward, but if people continue to disrespect and alter what has gone before, that will not take us forward but leave us for ever going over the same ground. It is important that we be positive, but some in the community are not and are holding things back.
	I am delighted that our party tabled this motion and it is only right and proper that we address the attempts to rewrite what really happened. Winston Churchill, whom I admire greatly and who was one of my childhood heroes, once said:
	“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.”
	The history of Northern Ireland is too fresh to undergo a rewrite and we can never defend the indefensible or justify the unjustifiable, no matter whether a tweet about a 30th anniversary is sent by a twit—I can think of other words, but I am not allowed to use them in this House—and no matter how many people gather to celebrate the lives of terrorists and murderers.
	Anyone who saw the faces of those family members who gathered at Castlederg during the despicable and wretched IRA parade—I was there—would say that the history of that area is not written but etched on the lines on their faces and the breaks in their hearts. The Protestant and Roman Catholic members of the Castlederg community had no wish to see the glorification of atrocities committed there. They had no wish to listen to the words of IRA members and elected leaders, or to see them parading through their streets with blatant disrespect. They stood silently in dignified protest with photographs of their murdered loved ones.
	There are 28 unsolved murders in Castlederg and only one person has been held responsible. Imagine the anger and pain that the people of Castlederg felt at the time. My cousin Kenneth Smyth, a sergeant in the Ulster Defence Regiment, was murdered along with his Roman Catholic friend on 10 December 1971. That caused real pain, real sorrow and real frustration. An elected representative tried to elevate the position of two would-be killers, and the parade disregarded totally the feelings of those who were only 100 or 150 yards away.
	We can move forward and find a way to make things work in Northern Ireland, but we cannot do so when such events are perpetually thrown in the faces of victims. Those real victims—as opposed to the perpetrators—have enough daily reminders, and it is essential that they feel supported by their community, their representatives and this House.
	I ask Members to send a message of support that they will stand with my party and me against the artistic licence that is too often used to lessen the impact through phrases such “legitimate targets” and “collateral damage”. There is no such thing: there is no such thing in Castlederg, on the Shankill road or at La Mon in Castlereagh in Belfast. There is certainly no such thing
	in Ballydougan in Downpatrick, where four UDR boys, three of whom I knew personally, were murdered by the IRA. There are only evil people, carrying out evil deeds for a cause that even those they think they represent do not want.
	Today I stand for every true victim of the troubles and say to them: even as we attempt to move forward to a functioning society, your loss has not been erased, you were not irrelevant, your family were not ignored or emotionally isolated, and you are not now—indeed, you will never be—forgotten. That is my promise and the promise of my party.

Kate Hoey: I pay tribute to the DUP for the extremely well phrased motion, which covers everything that anyone who has been involved in Northern Ireland for many years sees as essential to the future. I feel a little like an interloper, but I think it important that somebody from the Labour party speaks, other than my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis).
	I pay tribute to the previous Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), and the previous shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), both of whom I had the pleasure of being with at Northern Ireland football matches. I hope that the new shadow Secretary of State, the new Minister of State and, indeed, the Secretary of State will come to the next Northern Ireland international match, which will hopefully take place at the newly developed Windsor Park stadium. We will not talk about the results in the World cup.
	Much has been said about the Eames-Bradley report. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee discussed that report and took evidence on it. As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) said in his speech, Eames-Bradley could never have gone any further until the whole section on victims was changed. As he said, we cannot have a situation in which innocent victims are equated with perpetrators who die in the act of undertaking a killing or an atrocity.
	I am sorry that so few Members from both sides of the House have been here to hear the very moving speeches of Members from all parts of the House, particularly those from the DUP and the SDLP, who have lived through what we are discussing. Those of us who are involved in Northern Ireland have observed it and have been there a lot, but they have lived through it. The speech of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) encompassed so well the frustration, anger, despair and misery of the many people in Northern Ireland who feel that they have not received justice. We cannot have a proper look at the past or look to a brave new future until there is honesty and truth. Honesty and truth are not coming from Sinn Fein-IRA. Until those leaders are honest about what happened in the past, we will not move forward.
	I welcome the honest statement from the SDLP about the decision of its councillors on the naming of the park, which it knows caused huge distress. It is important that the leader of the party was prepared to say what he said. I also welcome the U-turn from the DUP on the Maze. It would have been quite shocking if it had become a shrine to terrorists, so that visitors could have gone to the Titanic in the morning and to the shrine in
	the afternoon. I am delighted that that has been dropped. I just hope that Sinn Fein do not throw their toys out of the pram and that the proper development of the site can go ahead.

William McCrea: I assure the hon. Lady that she did not need to worry, because there was never going to be and there never will be a shrine at the Maze.

Kate Hoey: We are all very happy about that.
	We have to recognise that there is a feeling among the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland that there has been an unevenness about the way in which we have investigated atrocities, particularly in relation to the huge amounts of money that were spent on the Bloody Sunday inquiry. That inquiry did produce a very good report and the Prime Minister made an excellent contribution in recognising that, but the idea that the PSNI will spent thousands and thousands—

Alasdair McDonnell: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Hoey: Of course I will give way.

Alasdair McDonnell: Does the hon. Lady accept that the reasons why so much money was spent on the Bloody Sunday inquiry were, first, that a whitewash job was done on it in the beginning and the lies had to be reversed and, secondly, that half the money was spent because of Ministry of Defence obstruction, which caused endless amounts of money to be spent on lawyers, who had to move all over the place? A fraction of the money could have brought us to the same conclusion.

Kate Hoey: The fact is that a huge amount of money was spent on that inquiry. We have had the report and the apology, and I do not see the necessity of the PSNI spending a lot more time and money trying to prosecute people who are now pensioners and who, whatever happened in the past, and whatever went wrong, were doing what they thought at the time was their duty.
	Why have that money, time and effort not been spent investigating atrocities such as that at Kingsmill? That was a shocking atrocity, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) who met some of the victims said. This is something people do not understand. They do not understand why no one has been investigated further for Omagh or Enniskillen—we could go through a whole list. It is just not acceptable because it seems that things are investigated only when the military or armed forces have been involved in some way. I know that their standards have to be higher, but when it comes to looking at justice, people feel aggrieved because they feel they have not had justice.
	I join the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley in paying tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. People who did not live in border areas in those days realise that they do not understand what many of those RUC officers and their families went through in dark nights, when they were subject to the most appalling retribution. I add my tribute to the RUC to those of other hon. Members.
	Dr Richard Haass has a huge task. He may find that he can move some things forward and get some more agreements, but ultimately, one man coming in from the United States will not change what people feel. This is interesting because we are talking about the past, and I hope Dr Haass recognises his country’s past role in the
	way it spent thousands and thousands of pounds allowing money to come to Ireland that was then used to fund the IRA and kill innocent civilians. I hope he realises that the United States had a bit of involvement for some time in ensuring that money was coming through to the IRA. We must remember that kind of thing as well; otherwise, the issue is again seen as one-sided.
	I see huge changes in Northern Ireland, and tourism now is brilliantly up on all the figures we have had in the past. The Titanic centre, the new Giant’s Causeway centre—I can name something in every constituency in Northern Ireland that has improved and is bringing in tourism.

Jim Shannon: Tourism in Northern Ireland is up by 4% in the last year, and is aiming for more. One of the great places to visit is Strangford Lough in my constituency.

Kate Hoey: I have had the honour of speaking at the annual dinner in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, so I do know it.
	Finally, we must remember—this is a point for those on the Front Benches—that there is a feeling in Northern Ireland that it is somehow great and okay to be Irish and have the Irish flag. The Irish Government are always speaking up for nationalists in Northern Ireland, and people who feel more Irish than British. Somehow, however, there is almost an embarrassment somewhere about sticking up for people in Northern Ireland who feel British and have the British flag. Our Government and Secretary of State have to feel that they are above it all and neutral, but the Irish Government do not feel like that. They are quite clear: they support people in Northern Ireland who would ultimately like to be part of an all-Ireland state. We must be careful about that issue.
	People voted to stay part of the United Kingdom. They want to stay part of the United Kingdom, and until there is a vote, I do not understand why anyone is saying that the British flag should not be flying anywhere in Northern Ireland, particularly on our town halls. There are all these nice words about everybody getting on well with each other. Of course that has to happen, and the work going on in our communities is making that a lot better than it was. However, we cannot divert the important issue of identity. That would be important to people in my constituency, so why should it not be just as important to those in Northern Ireland?
	Finally, on victims, would mainland MPs—we do not have the same law on victims as Northern Ireland—accept it if someone who had committed the most appalling atrocity was treated as a victim in the same way as those who suffered from their atrocity? We would not let that happen. I hope Northern Ireland will be part of the UK for a very long time—for ever. People in Northern Ireland must be entitled to the same rights and privileges as people in the rest of the UK. That is fundamental. Until that approach to victims is changed, we will never be able to move forward to the future all hon. Members want.

Gregory Campbell: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I should inform the House that I will not apply the 10-minute limit to the winding-up speeches, but I trust he will adhere roughly to it.

Gregory Campbell: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will adhere to that time. It is a pleasure to serve under your deputy speakership.
	The debate has been telling and important. As many right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is being held on the 20th anniversary of the Shankill road massacre. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) outlined in very emotional yet diplomatic terms what happened on that day. October 1993 was an horrendous month. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and others have outlined, we had not only the Shankill massacre, which resulted in nine murders, but the Greysteel massacre a few days later in my constituency, which resulted in eight murders. They are to be condemned equally. Without equivocation or hesitation, we utterly and totally condemn all those murders. In fact, 28 people died in October 1993, such was the nature of the violence that year.

Ian Paisley Jnr: My hon. Friend will vividly recall that on that morning we were sitting in a meeting of party officers in a hotel in Dungannon when we got the news of the atrocity at Shankill. Many of us raced to the Shankill road and saw for ourselves the horrid vista of violence that was visited on the people of Northern Ireland. When we witness such things with our own eyes, it drives home how atrocious terrorism in Northern Ireland has been, and how grateful we should be that we can start to move on.

Gregory Campbell: We all recollect exactly where we were and our reactions at that time.
	I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to his new position. He indicated that he has been in place for only 14 days, and yet he is rapidly getting to grips. He understands that his position is a challenging profile. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson)—the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—said that the future had to be better than the past. All hon. Members concur with that. My hon. Friends the Members for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), and other colleagues, elaborated on double standards.
	The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) made a reasonably positive contribution, although I do not get what connection the Planning Bill, which was debated yesterday in the Northern Ireland Assembly, has with dealing with the past. I will leave that to one side. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) spoke at some length about the need to reconcile the distinctive and profound differences, which all hon. Members understand.
	The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said that honesty was required, and I shall speak in the remaining moments I have on the theme of honesty. There is a distinction in Northern Ireland, but it is not between Unionism/loyalism and nationalism/republicanism. There is a distinct difference in how we look at the past. The
	vast majority of people, be they Unionists or Nationalists, look at the past and see that there were those who carried out evil, heinous atrocities. There were then those in the RUC, the UDR and the Army who had to respond and try to deal with the problem that had been created by the paramilitaries. The vast majority of people on both sides know that that distinction is absolutely clear. The security forces endeavoured to contain the paramilitaries that carried out so many atrocities, whether they were republican or loyalist organisations. Unfortunately, that containment was for many years restricted by political considerations. We always knew that the decoded message was, “Do not rock the boat. We’re trying to include republicans in the political process. Please do not rock the boat.”

Mark Durkan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He rightly talks about the nefarious activities of all paramilitaries, but does he not recognise that the UDA, which carried out the murders that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) talked about, carried out many of those murders while it was a legal organisation, with the British Government failing to proscribe it and both main Unionist parties supporting keeping it as a legal organisation, even though everybody knew it was up to its necks in sectarian murder?

Gregory Campbell: The hon. Gentleman makes an intervention that, unfortunately for him, is not based on fact. Whether there was murder by the UDA or the UVF, or any overreaction by security forces, our position has been that if there is any evidence against anyone, no matter what their standing is, it should be brought before a court of law and that person should face the full rigours of the law.
	Unfortunately, there are those in the republican community who engaged in paramilitary violence and seem to be beyond the reach of the courts and the prosecution service. No matter how much pressure people bring to bear by indicating their knowledge of previous events, there seems to be a reluctance to call in for questioning Gerry Adams, the former Member for West Belfast, Martin McGuinness the former Member for Mid Ulster, and a host of others.
	The position is this: the past is there and we, in different communities, are trying to grapple with it. We are having a difficult time coming to terms with how we move forward. Dr Richard Haass and his team have been involved, and will be involved in the course of the next few months, in trying to help us to come to terms with that past. The perpetrators of violence might not acknowledge their part in it and not accede to the rest of the community that they were wrong. That has been Sinn Fein’s position to date and it gives no indication of changing it. If it holds to it, it may well be that we cannot deal comprehensively with the past. It would have to admit that it was wrong to engage in murder on Shankill road and so many other places, as others were equally wrong to engage in murder in Greysteel and in other locations.
	While the guilty refuse to admit their guilt, we cannot come to a successful conclusion about the past. We may have to make do with whatever agreement we can reach to try to minimise the impact the current situation brings to all sides and say, as the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee said, that we have to make a future that is better than the past. As we are dealing
	with honesty, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, it would be churlish of us not to say that we must move forward. Let us try to indicate to everyone that what we have done in the past has been done. If the guilty refuse to own up and we cannot bring the evidence to bear to bring them to court, we will have to move beyond that and leave them to the contempt that, hopefully, their peers and successive generations will heap upon their heads.

Theresa Villiers: Madam Deputy Speaker, I join others in congratulating you on your new role. I also thank all Members for their contributions. It has been a very good and, at times, extremely moving debate, and I echo the praise of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) for the number of the contributions. We all in the House should pay particular tribute to political representatives and MPs in Northern Ireland who were prepared, courageously, to put their heads above the parapet during the troubles. It is an honour to have them in the House and to hear directly from them, who lived through these events, about their experiences.
	A theme that has pervaded the whole debate is our profound sympathy for all those who suffered in Northern Ireland’s troubles. We have heard some desperately sad stories, and I am sure I speak for the whole House in again offering our condolences and sympathies to those who were injured, to those who lost loved ones and to those whose injuries might not be visible or physical, but are none the less deep-seated. It is a privilege to have the opportunity, thanks to the DUP, to debate these matters in the House.
	The second thing common to almost every speech was a profound and sincere tribute to the men and women of the armed forces and police, particularly the Ulster Defence Regiment and the RUC, for all they did in upholding the rule of law and protecting the community in Northern Ireland, despite huge personal risk to themselves. Of course, many of them made the ultimate sacrifice.
	Too many points were made in the debate for me to cover them in the short time available. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) expressed his concern about pubic inquiries, and certainly the Government have also expressed their scepticism about public inquiries as a means to deal with the past. In particular, it simply is not possible for each of those 3,500 victims to have their own public inquiry, which means that those we have are uneven and can divide opinion. Several other speakers, including the hon. Member for Vauxhall, raised that potentially uneven approach. She was also concerned about so-called Government neutrality. I can assure her that the Government are not neutral on the Union, but are fully supportive of Northern Ireland’s place within it. It was the previous Government who professed neutrality on the Union.
	On the comments from the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), yes we had a little episode of non-bipartisanship, but there will always be areas in which the Front Benches work together—that has always been the case—and I welcome his reiteration of that this afternoon. As he said, we have a shared responsibility to do all we can to help Northern Ireland make progress. Crucially, I can provide the warmest of assurances that the Government remain determinedly engaged in Northern
	Ireland matters, as was seen not least in the Prime Minister’s bringing eight of the world’s most powerful leaders to a summit in County Fermanagh as a means of demonstrating what a fabulous place Northern Ireland is and how much affection he has for it.

Lady Hermon: Picking up on the comments and criticisms made by the shadow Secretary of State, I say very gently to the right hon. Lady that the perception in Northern Ireland is of a polite disengagement by the Government. If 54 police officers had been injured in rioting in Manchester or Birmingham, Cardiff or Bristol during the summer, the Home Secretary would have gone there, and it would have been equally nice and appropriate had she gone to Northern Ireland and said to the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister, “We support you all the way.” That is just one example of what I regard as polite disengagement. Will the Secretary of State address that concern?

Theresa Villiers: I assure the hon. Lady that I was fully engaged throughout this summer. I was in Northern Ireland for much of it, and I kept in close touch with the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister because of my grave concerns about what was going on. I assure her that I was the first very publicly to condemn the violence and the attacks on police officers, which were absolutely unacceptable. I will continue to call on all to ensure that they comply with the determinations of the Parades Commission, that they respect the rule of law and that these disgraceful attacks on police officers are not repeated.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), the Chairman of the Select Committee, was right to focus on the future. Like other hon. Members, he expressed concern about the parading system and the violence we have seen. He was right to emphasise that hundreds of parades take place in Northern Ireland every year that are entirely peaceful, but it is important to point out that not only were the attacks we saw on police officers unacceptable, but they do huge economic damage to Northern Ireland because of their impact around the world. That is an important reason why I hope we will see a resolution of the current situation in north Belfast. It is a concern to have a protest camp and nightly parades so close to a very volatile interface, and I hope that local conversations can take place to try to find a way to resolve the situation.
	The hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury made a number of points about the importance of going forward with educational improvements. We heard an exchange about whether integrated education was the way forward. I am sure that all in this House recognise the importance of ensuring that children in Northern Ireland have the chance to learn alongside others, whether that is through shared education or integrated education.
	The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) started his contribution by emphasising that it is vital to learn from the past, and I fully agree with him. Like him, this Government will not accept attempts to rewrite the history of the troubles. As many hon. Members have done today, he called for any process to have the victims of the troubles at its heart.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) for the excellent work he did as Minister of State. He also told us of the poignant and moving meetings he had with victims, including those of the horrendous Kingsmill massacre. Like others, he paid tribute to the armed forces, doing so as a Member of Parliament for a constituency with a proud naval tradition. The hon. Member for Upper Bann, too, talked about the importance of education and skills in building a successful future in Northern Ireland. I firmly agree with that and I am sure that the Northern Ireland Executive, who have responsibility for education now, do as well.
	The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) spoke frankly about his party’s position on naming places after those responsible for previous violence, and it was welcome that he was able to clarify that. I share his call for a move towards a truly reconciled society. I am sure that everyone in the House will agree with calls made by him and by many others for all the political parties to approach the Haass process with the determination to give courageous leadership and to make progress. He also spoke, as others did, about the Eames-Bradley report. That proved quite divisive when it was published, but no doubt Dr Haass and others will seek to look at aspects of that report to see whether any of them are appropriate in terms of the outcome of the work that is undertaken by the Haass process.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) was right to focus on the complexity of this issue and the fact that there are no easy answers. It is of grave concern that so many victims are still seeking the truth and still feel that they have not had justice. He also talked about whether lessons could be learned from the Eames-Bradley report as part of the process that is now going forward.
	The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) spoke movingly about his experiences, and I wish to pay tribute to all the work that he has done in Northern Ireland on behalf of his constituents. They could not possibly have a more resolute defender of their interests, and I know that he and his family have personally suffered as a result of the terrorist campaigns in Northern Ireland. This House owes him a great debt of gratitude for all that he has done for his constituents. The hon. Gentleman said that, in his view, there was a need for an apology from the Government of the Republic of Ireland. I hope that he will welcome, as I did, the speech made recently by the Tánaiste, Eamon Gilmore, at the British-Irish Association conference, in which he acknowledged the concerns and the perceptions around the way in which his Government had occasionally approached the troubles. That was a welcome speech, and an important step forward by the Tánaiste.
	The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) spoke with great determination and passion, and repudiated any suggestion that the troubles amounted to a just war. He was right to emphasise how important it had been to start this debate with a list of names being read out by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. It is crucial, in this debate and in the Richard Haass process, that we remember that this is about individuals, each with their own story of tragedy. Hearing their names was an entirely appropriate way in which to commence what has been an excellent debate.
	We have heard much about the past this afternoon, but a number of people have also called for a determination to move forward and build a better future for Northern Ireland. Much is being done to improve the economy, and important work is under way to address sectarian divisions and build the genuinely united community that we all want to see. The Executive, the political leadership and the people of Northern Ireland all have the full support of the UK Government in taking that important work forward.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes the ongoing discussions in Northern Ireland chaired by Dr Richard Haass on a number of important issues including the legacy of the Troubles; recognises the deep sense of loss still felt by the innocent victims of violence and their continuing quest for truth and justice; acknowledges the valour and sacrifice of the men and women who served and continue to serve in the armed forces, the police and the prison service in Northern Ireland; and is resolved to ensure that those who engaged in or supported acts of terrorism will not succeed in rewriting the narrative of this troubled period in Northern Ireland’s history.

Air Passenger Duty

Sammy Wilson: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises that the UK has the highest rate of air passenger duty (APD) in the world; believes that this is detrimental to attracting inward investment, encouraging exports, drawing more tourists to the UK and helping ordinary families to benefit from aviation; notes research carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers and others stating that abolishing APD would not only pay for itself but would be a permanent economic boost to the UK economy and create tens of thousands of jobs; further believes that the abolition of this tax would be of benefit to all regions of the UK; further notes that it is the intention of the Prime Minister to review green taxes; and calls on the Government, as part of that review, to give high priority to the abolition of air passenger duty.
	May I offer you my congratulations on achieving your position, Madam Deputy Speaker? This is the first time I have spoken while you have been in the Chair.
	I am pleased to say that the debate has received endorsement from the very highest level. During today’s Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister made it clear during his exchange with the Leader of the Opposition that it was his intention—and presumably therefore that of the Government—to “roll back…green regulations”. His office has also promised a review of green taxes.

Henry Smith: I also welcome that statement by the Prime Minister. However, air passenger duty should not be confused with green taxes. It is a tax that costs the economy more than it brings into the Exchequer, so it is important that we concentrate on that as well.

Sammy Wilson: I will come to that in a moment, but we must make it clear that APD started off as a green tax and that it is still regarded by many as a tax that is meant to cut down emissions from the aviation industry. Like many other taxes that started off as green taxes, it is highly damaging to the economy.

Graham Stringer: Given the hon. Gentleman’s views, I expect that I will agree with most of what he says, but he is wrong on that point. I went back to Hansard and checked what the Government said at the time of the introduction of APD. It was not introduced as a green tax. It has been stolen by the green movement, but it was introduced because the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, thought that aviation was under-taxed, even though that was not the case. I agree with most of the hon. Gentleman’s points, but the tax was not introduced as a green tax.

Sammy Wilson: I am not going to go back into the history of Hansard to dispute that point. However, whether the tax has been hijacked, or whether it was originally intended to be a green tax, it is still cited today as one of those taxes that we need to hold on to if we are to cut our carbon emissions.
	There is, of course, general concern about electricity prices, the cost of air travel and a whole range of issues affecting the UK economy. The previous Government were, of course, the same on green issues as the present Government, but the zeal of UK Governments to deal
	with such issues is not found in other parts of the world or of Europe, and that places us at a disadvantage. We have to stop this King Canute attitude to climate change whereby the UK Government think that they can somehow use fiscal powers to affect what is happening to the climate across the world, although they are damaging our own economy at the same time.

Lady Hermon: A label has been attached to the hon. Gentleman—quite unfairly, I am sure—to the effect that he is a climate change denier. I cannot believe for one moment that that could be true. Would he like to take the opportunity to put on record the fact that he actually believes that there is climate change?

Sammy Wilson: Only a fool would deny that there is climate change. The world’s climate has been changing ever since the world was in existence. The question is what is the cause of that climate change, and what impact might the fiscal measures introduced by the House have on it.

Nigel Evans: On measures to address climate change, does the hon. Gentleman agree that air passenger duty has led to passenger change? Instead of flying from UK domestic airports, people are going to Schiphol, Paris, Frankfurt and Madrid for their long-haul flights, which means that the UK just loses out.

Sammy Wilson: We in Northern Ireland, of course, feel that much more than anyone else because we share a land boundary with another country and are just 100 miles away from what is now a major international airport at which there is no air passenger duty. That places airports in Northern Ireland at a grave disadvantage.

Angus MacNeil: I will glide over the hon. Gentleman’s advertising of Dublin airport. Is not his main point that this has nothing to do with climate, as it is really about demand management at Heathrow, where there is not enough capacity to deal with demand? That demand-management tool then damages other airports in Scotland, Northern Ireland or wherever.

Sammy Wilson: I do not know whether it is about demand management at Heathrow, but I do know that there has been an impact not only on the pattern of where and how people fly but, much more importantly, on economic growth in the United Kingdom and on the connectivity that many of the regions need if they are to develop markets elsewhere in the world.
	Let us look at the facts. Since air passenger duty was introduced, it has increased by 160% for short-haul flights and by 225% for long-haul flights. The tax brings £2.8 billion into the Exchequer, and that is expected to rise to £3.8 billion by 2016-17. If we make a comparison with other EU countries, we can see where the problem lies. Many EU countries do not have any APD, while some introduced it but abandoned it because of its impact. The countries that have retained it have done so at a lower level than here in the United Kingdom. I shall
	not bore the House with all the percentages, but others might want to cite them to demonstrate the impact on airports in their areas.
	I do not want to be parochial, although other Northern Ireland Members may wish to spell this out in much greater detail, but it would be remiss of me not to point out that air passenger duty has a significant impact on the economy in places such as Northern Ireland. We cannot transfer between air and train travel, so the only option for people who wish to travel to places outside Northern Ireland, whether in Great Britain or elsewhere, is to travel by aeroplane, and hence to pay the duty. The Irish Government abolished air passenger duty in the Republic, with which we share a land boundary, because they recognised the importance of air connectivity to the general well-being and growth of the economy, the promotion of jobs, the attraction of inward investment, and a range of other economic benefits.

David Simpson: Is not a typical example of the benefits of zero air passenger duty provided by the Dutch Government who, having abolished it in 2010, discovered that £1.3 billion had been lost to infrastructure and the economy since its introduction?

Sammy Wilson: The Dutch Government were not the only Government to change their mind in that regard.
	It would be churlish of me not to accept the role played by Ministers—especially the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who is in the Chamber, and the former Minister of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire)—who listened to what was said by Northern Ireland Members about long-haul flights and, in particular, one long-haul flight to north America that connects us to a major investment market. We have managed to attract a great deal of inward investment from that place, but the main fear expressed by the Northern Ireland Executive was that the loss of that route—which was likely to go because of the air passenger duty issue—would lead to the loss of an important economic lever in the investment package of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
	Notwithstanding what has been said about this not being a listening Government, on that issue the Government did listen and act. As a result, we have retained the long-haul flight to north America, which is still paying dividends in terms of connectivity and investment. The industry Minister has announced a number of investments from north America in the last few months, and I have no doubt that part of that success is due to the ease with which managers from New York and Boston, for example, could fly into Northern Ireland for meetings with the firms that they had set up there.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the leadership that he provided in discussing these issues as Northern Ireland’s Finance Minister. Does he agree that what Northern Ireland really needs—apart from a solution to the APD problem—is a proper air strategy that takes account of the role of each of our airports and enables us to adopt a joined-up approach?

Sammy Wilson: I think that that applies to the United Kingdom as a whole. The debate about whether Heathrow should be expanded or whether there should be an
	alternative to Heathrow is relevant to regional airports in not just Northern Ireland, but other parts of the United Kingdom, to which I am sure other Members will refer.

Paul Goggins: The hon. Gentleman rightly emphasises the importance of protecting the existing route between Northern Ireland and north America, but does he agree that APD is also preventing new routes from opening up? May I offer an example from Manchester airport in my constituency? AirAsia X was looking to open a new route from Kuala Lumpur and was considering Manchester as the destination, but it dropped the plan in favour of Paris Orly simply because of APD.

Sammy Wilson: That is one of the reasons why the Northern Ireland Executive sought the devolution of long-haul APD. We pay the price for that, as the lost revenue has to come out of the block grant for Northern Ireland, but despite that, it was important because of the freedom that it gave us to look for new long-haul routes, which would be good for the economy. I have heard time and again from regions in England and Scotland that industry leaders believe it is important to try to get new long-haul routes for connectivity in terms of selling exports, getting inward investment and making business connections, but that is being held back because of the high level of APD for long-haul flights.

Diane Abbott: I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the effects of APD on Northern Ireland and the complexities of the issue. Is he aware that it is also a tremendous issue in the Caribbean? Because of the arbitrary way in which it has been zoned, people pay more APD to go to the Caribbean than to go to north America. Does not all this point to the need for a holistic look at APD and its effects on not only the economy of Northern Ireland, but traditional allies of Britain in the Caribbean?

Sammy Wilson: I do not want to get into the complexities of how APD is calculated, but anyone with just a basic knowledge of geography knows that the Caribbean is closer than California, yet California is regarded as closer in terms of calculating APD. Even here there are anomalies that have regional impacts.

David Lammy: Have the Northern Irish been able to forge any solidarity with the small nations in the Caribbean that are suffering in this way? The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are many British citizens of Caribbean background and, as they are certainly not the country’s richest citizens, many of them cannot afford, as a family of four, £332 extra in APD to fly back to the Caribbean on a once-in-a-lifetime trip.

Sammy Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Although this tax is regarded by some as a tax on the rich and therefore a progressive tax, it is not: it is a flat-rate tax and therefore it is a regressive tax. Many of those who are hit are travelling on holidays or to see their families, and they save up for that even though many of them are on low incomes. Indeed, 45% of those who are hit by it would be regarded as being on medium or below-medium incomes, yet they
	pay the same tax as those earning more than £80,000. Leaving aside the impact on growth, on exports and on industry, the regressive nature of the tax makes it an unfair tax, and that is another reason this issue needs to be looked at.

Alan Haselhurst: Bearing in mind the huge revenue APD currently yields for the Government and the fact that passenger demand is rising, it would be quite a good idea to concentrate on some of the anomalies in the structure of the tax at present. That might be the weakest point of the shell around the argument—the perverse way it impacts in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman has persuasively been saying, in the Caribbean and, indeed, in other parts of the Commonwealth.

Sammy Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman is right. One of the reasons why we in Northern Ireland sought devolution of the long-haul tax is that we could not have afforded to have all our passenger duty devolved, with the impact that that would have had on the block grant. Nevertheless, chipping away at APD as the right hon. Gentleman describes is important.
	I will come later to the revenue that the Government currently make from APD, as I am sure that is the point that the Minister will make. It is one thing to rant about the unfairness and inequity of air passenger duty, but where will the Government get the money from otherwise?

Angus MacNeil: Does not all that the hon. Gentleman is highlighting show the mindset of the zero sum game? There is no concept that, if APD were devolved, that would cause growth in the economy and the Government doing that would be rewarded. All that happens is that devolved Governments are penalised, while another Department in London gets the extra revenue in the economy.

Sammy Wilson: I have dealt with the issue in Northern Ireland, so I shall deal with that as a general issue for the United Kingdom economy as a whole. Let us look at the Government’s present objectives. We wish to achieve economic growth. We have heard the Chancellor on many occasions in the House argue that growth cannot be achieved simply by injecting more public funds into the economy, although some of us would query whether a particular type of injection, especially in infrastructure, would not have benefits.
	Leaving that aside, the Government’s main thrust is that, if industry in the United Kingdom became more productive and more export-orientated and sold goods abroad, we would be able to achieve economic growth. Yet if there is one tax militating against export-orientated growth, it is this tax. Businesses currently pay about £500 million per year in air passenger duty. That, according to all the reports that have been done, influences the willingness and the ability of businesses to go overseas to look for suppliers, markets, investment and opportunities, and the frequency with which they do so. Therefore, air passenger duty has a deflationary effect and reduces the incentive for businesses to do what the Government want them to do. It therefore impacts on the ability of firms to increase their markets, increase their productivity and bring in investment, which can create further competition and help to increase the health of the economy.

Mike Thornton: The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting points, but I am puzzled about one thing. If reducing APD increases flights, where will those planes land? We seem to have a shortage of capacity at present. If we were full because we were doing so well, what would happen?

Sammy Wilson: The point was made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) that APD must be seen in the context of an overall strategy. However, as has been pointed out by a number of Members, there are airports other than Heathrow and Gatwick which are capable of taking long-haul flights. Having those direct long-haul flights or even short-haul flights to other destinations would help many regional economies significantly, and there is excess capacity there. We should not always think in terms of only the main hub airports when we are talking about the industry’s capacity.
	Studies have been done on the impact of removing air passenger duty and a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers went to the Chancellor. All economic models can be challenged. As an economist, I used to tell youngsters when I was teaching them in school that the model is only as good as the assumptions put into it, and those may change before the model has been run for sufficient time. We always have to be careful about economic modelling, and I am sure that the Minister will make the same point. The model used by the consultants took cautious views about elasticity of demand for tourism and elasticity of fiscal changes. It used a model that is used by the Treasury to measure the impact of policy changes. When the Chancellor comes to the House with Budget policies and tells us that behavioural changes will lead to this or that, he uses exactly the same kind of models that were used in this report. The outcome was that to remove air passenger duty altogether would lead to GDP growth in the first year of 0.45%, and in the next two years of 0.3%. During those three years, £16 billion would be added to GDP and there would be 60,000 jobs, an increase in exports of 5% and an increase in inward investment of 6%.
	When people asked me for money, I would ask where it was to come from. If they wanted me to spend money on this, I would ask where we would spend less. If they wanted taxes on business reduced, I would ask where we were to get the money from. There must always be a counterbalance, but the good thing about this proposal is that it is fiscally neutral. If anything, given its impact on exports, investment and growth, the £4 billion that would be lost by 2016-17 would be more than compensated for by the increase in tax revenues and the reduction in benefit payments. That is most unusual for any fiscal change. The reasons for it are, first, that the level of taxation is so high in the UK compared with elsewhere that there would be a positive impact. Secondly, there is the importance of transport. This is borne out not just by the model but by the Department for Transport. The importance of transport to the economy is such that there is a huge multiplier effect. Lastly, because of the connectivity that this gives to other markets, there would be a positive impact.
	The coalition Government promised to look at a replacement for air passenger duty and said that the revenue raised—they did not say that more would be raised—would be used to offset income tax changes. If
	the Government changed the method of taxation for air travel, they did not see that money as going into the general pot, either to reduce borrowing or to facilitate spending on other Departments, but as something that would be given away anyway to taxpayers. Therefore, as far as how we pay for it is concerned, all the work that has been done indicates that it should be revenue-neutral. However, I assume—perhaps I am just being naive—that if the Government had made a promise that the revenue from taxing air travel would be given in income taxes and that had been factored in already, they did not actually need it for their fiscal reduction plans anyway.
	I was going to talk about the environmental concerns. Members might have gathered that the impact of CO2 emissions, or whatever other emissions there might be from air travel, on the world environment does not feature very high on my list of priorities. I am one of those who believe that there is a big orange globe up in the sky that has influenced the Earth’s climate for billions of years and will continue to do so and that the impact humans have on that is very limited. We should certainly not be strangling our economy in order to try to change the climate, especially when countries around the world that emit far more CO2 than we ever will do not give two hoots about emissions, so anything we do strangles our economy and is likely to have very little impact anyway.
	Another reason why I do not believe that we should spend too much time on the environmental concerns is that air passenger duty, as a number of Members have pointed out, is not a green tax anyway. In that case, I am sure that Members will not be using arguments about polar bears sinking to the bottom of the Arctic ocean, or whatever other emotive arguments and blackmail they might wish to use, during this debate. Actually, it also means that I do not even have to deal with the environmental concerns.

Angus MacNeil: I hear a sigh of relief from behind you.

Sammy Wilson: There probably is a sigh of relief from hon. Friends behind me, because they do not all share my views on that.

Nigel Mills: I was enjoying that part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. For the Assembly, how close did the abolition of APD in Northern Ireland come to being a viable way of encouraging investment? Was it anywhere near that, or was it way down the Assembly’s list of priorities?

Sammy Wilson: It was very high on the Assembly’s list of priorities. We entered into the devolution of air passenger duty for long-haul flights not knowing what the final bill would be, but we did so in the knowledge that, regardless of what the bill would be, it was a very significant issue for the Northern Ireland economy—I can say that now because the bill has been settled, but if I had said it earlier Treasury Ministers might have thought, “Oh well, we can stick the arm in as far as we like.” It was one of our top priorities. Indeed, many people argued at the time that it was all about tourism, but it was not; it was essentially about the investment strategy that had been set out for Northern Ireland and the need for connectively with one of the main markets from which we attract inward investment. All the indications we had from investors show that ease of travel was very important, whether for their managers into Northern
	Ireland or for staff going to north America for training purposes or whatever, so for Belfast to have that connection was essential. For those reasons, the Northern Ireland Executive decided to seek the devolution of air passenger duty for long-haul flights.

Nigel Mills: I understand that completely, but can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Executive are not taking a similar view on short-haul flights and why it presumably thinks that there are better ways to encourage inward investment or tourism than at least partially reducing APD for flights from Northern Ireland?

Sammy Wilson: It really comes back to the point made in an earlier intervention about chipping away at it and trying to use arguments to undermine the tax and its anomalies and to highlight its impact at the regional level. We took the view that it was most important that the long haul part of the tax should be devolved because we were about to lose Continental Airlines flights into Northern Ireland. That issue had immediate priority.
	As the Executive have discussed again just this week, we believe that the problem is UK-wide. One of the reasons why this debate is important and why we did not frame it solely in terms of Northern Ireland is that we believe it is about a UK-wide issue. If there is to be change, it should be made here in Westminster rather than the full cost—anything up to £90 million—being borne solely by Northern Ireland. That would have a significant impact on the block grant.

Kate Hoey: I fully accept that, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that Northern Ireland is special and different because there is a lot of sea between it and the rest of the UK? Those who cannot afford to fly have to take a long route. It might help if Ministers sometimes did not fly to Belfast, but took the route that many poorer people have to take because it is so much cheaper to go all the way up to Stranraer.

Sammy Wilson: That is exactly right. The road or road-and-rail journey is also long and expensive.
	To sum up, I trust that during this debate we will hear from Members about the impact that they have seen the tax having on the parts of the economy that they represent across the United Kingdom. Since there is to be a review of green taxes, semi-green taxes, pale green taxes, taxes that used to be green but are no longer, or whatever, and given that this issue should be revenue-neutral yet fit in with the Government strategy of export-led growth, I trust that APD will be given serious consideration in the review of fiscal policy.

Nicky Morgan: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a real pleasure to speak in this debate, particularly given that you are in the Chair. It does not seem that long ago that we were meeting on the Terrace and you were giving me advice on how to become a Member of Parliament—and now look at where we both are.
	It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I thank him for raising the issues, which relate to the two greatest challenges facing the Government and Britain today—rebuilding
	the British economy and restoring the public finances. The House well knows the state of both challenges when the Government came into office. The economy was still reeling from the impact of the recent banking crisis and Britain had the largest fiscal deficit in our peacetime history.
	The hon. Gentleman started talking about zealousness, particularly in respect of green taxes. I thought he was going to talk about zealousness in tackling the fiscal deficit, although I am not sure that I heard that from him. The Government have had to face up to those challenges and take tough choices. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor committed to tackling our budget deficit and getting our national debt under control. Fixing the public finances is vital to maintain confidence in Britain and the stability that is an essential condition of growth, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and recovery.
	In recent months, the statistics on gross domestic product, employment, business investment and consumer confidence have all shown that our efforts are beginning to bear fruit. The process of recovery is, of course, far from complete, but, building on the stable foundations that the Government put in place, the economy is now healing. I am sure that the whole House welcomes the signs of recovery so far and looks forward to seeing them continue.
	In particular, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the recent good economic news from Northern Ireland. This year, Northern Ireland’s exports have risen by 4% in the second quarter of the year and in September they rose at the fastest rate in nearly six years. September also saw the third consecutive month of grown in Northern Ireland’s GDP, with activity rising in the manufacturing, retail and services sectors. It also saw the third consecutive month of rising private sector employment, while total jobs have grown by more than 5,000 over the course of the year. That has kept unemployment in Northern Ireland well below the UK average and the fourth lowest of the 12 UK regions. Just as Northern Ireland makes a key contribution to the UK economy overall, growth and recovery in Northern Ireland are making a key contribution to the UK’s wider recovery.
	Supporting strong transport links is a key part of building our economic recovery. The Government are therefore bringing forward record investment in transport infrastructure, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, to ensure the connectivity of all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. That is why in this year’s spending review we announced a £20 million fund to improve air connectivity between London and the rest of the United Kingdom. Where the case is made for a public service obligation, the Government will use this fund to support regional air links. Northern Ireland will be able to bid for that support. This would build on existing support for the Northern Irish economy—for example, the additional £94 million of capital spending power for the Northern Ireland Executive announced in this year’s Budget and the action plan set out in the Northern Ireland economic pact published this June.
	Ensuring sound public finances is indispensable to economic recovery. With forecast revenues of £2.9 billion in 2013-14, air passenger duty, or APD, makes an essential contribution to the Government’s strategy for tackling the current budget deficit and getting debt under control.

Jonathan Edwards: I welcome the Minister to her post on the Treasury Front Bench. She will be aware that this time last year the Silk commission in Wales argued strongly that minor taxes such as airport duty should be devolved to the National Assembly and the Welsh Government with more or less immediate effect, to be implemented in the most recent Finance Bill. We are still waiting for the UK Government to respond to the first part of the Silk commission’s report. Is she able to enlighten us on when we are likely to have that response?

Nicky Morgan: I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific date. All I can say is that Ministers are continuing to evaluate all this and ask for his patience for a little longer. I do appreciate that this matter is part of those discussions.
	Despite these challenges, the Government have frozen APD in real terms since 2010, and since then APD rates have risen by only £1 for the vast majority of flights. Given the fiscal challenges we face, no responsible Government would simply relinquish nearly £3 billion of revenue.

Diane Abbott: The whole House understands the fiscal challenges, but given the particular problems that APD zoning is causing in the Caribbean, why are Treasury Ministers not prepared even to consider a change in the arrangements that would maintain their total tax take, as I appreciate they want to do, but be fairer to millions of people in the Caribbean and millions of people who live here, who are British voters, and who are having to pay this tax to go backwards and forwards?

Nicky Morgan: First, I am not sure that all hon. Members do understand the fiscal challenges facing the Government, but I will assume that the hon. Lady does, very much so. I listened carefully to what she said about the Caribbean. I know that Ministers, including my predecessor, have engaged with representatives. I could be wrong, although I do not think the hon. Lady will be surprised if I said that I know more about air passenger duty today than I did this time last week, but I think that zoning for the Caribbean was introduced by the previous Government. All Ministers keep all taxes under review. However, I heard what she said, and we will listen to the representations that are made.

Angus MacNeil: I, too, welcome the hon. Lady to her new position. What are these fiscal challenges that the Westminster Government face? The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), as Finance Minister in Northern Ireland, has to balance his books. The UK has not paid its way since 2001; in fact, in the past year it has borrowed £120 billion. There is a good argument that says that changing the management of APD will increase GDP and tax revenues. With that body of evidence behind it, is it not worth listening to the wise words on APD rather than ploughing on regardless?

Nicky Morgan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I think that the fiscal challenges are very apparent. We still have a large debt and a deficit run up under the previous Government which this Government have said we need to tackle. Later in my speech I will talk about the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, the impact on GDP, and the assumptions that are made.

Andy Slaughter: I welcome the Minister to her post. She is at least the sixth Minister whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and I have approached on this subject and I think she may have slightly misunderstood the point made by my hon. Friend, which is that it is possible to be fiscally neutral while also being fairer. Will she go away and consider issues related to the Caribbean in particular, although this does affect other countries as well? Before the last election, the then shadow Treasury Ministers were very eloquent in advocating per-plane taxes and readjusting banding so that many of my Caribbean constituents, as well as those of many of the other Members present, would not be disadvantaged. Will the Minister at least give an undertaking to look at the issue with a fresh pair of eyes?

Nicky Morgan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am keeping a very fresh pair of eyes on all areas of my Treasury brief. I look forward to meeting him and the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) to discuss the issue further. We will certainly keep it under review.
	As I have said, we must continue to work hard to reduce the deficit, so if we were to abolish APD, an alternative source for the revenue would need to be found. We never seem to hear any suggestions, but if we hear any today my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary will respond to them in his winding-up speech.
	Some have argued that, in the case of APD, no such off-setting measures would be necessary and that abolishing the tax would pay for itself by increasing economic activity overall and thus receipts from other taxes. The motion cites the report by PricewaterhouseCoopers arguing exactly that. I will turn to the report shortly, but first let me address the general question of the impact of the tax system on the UK economy and the UK’s international competitiveness.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the Minister to her place and congratulate her on her new post.
	May I suggest that one way in which the Government could make money out of this and increase productivity would be to incentivise the 50,000 Australians who visit Northern Ireland every year to fly through Heathrow and use that as their hub, instead of flying to Dublin before travelling up to Northern Ireland and then leaving via Dublin and spending their money there?

Nicky Morgan: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion and I will certainly think about it. My earlier remarks hinted at the existence of the Airports Commission, which will look at all the UK’s airports, the role they play for travellers and how we deal with those who come here by whichever means.

David Lammy: On the Minister’s broader point, it is incredibly interesting to hear a Conservative arguing at the Dispatch Box that the highest taxation of this sort in the world is necessary. Is that consistent with the hon. Lady’s position in Loughborough?

Nicky Morgan: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As a Conservative, I believe in the lowest tax possible, but I also believe in running the economy
	as responsibly as possible, meaning that what we get in, we spend out. That was put out of kilter by the legacy of the previous Government. We have been very clear about the reason for APD and the role it plays. We cannot choose to ignore £3 billion when we have to deal with the deficit and legacy left to us by the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was at times a member.

Angus MacNeil: On balancing the books and spending what we raise, if that were the case the UK would raise income tax by 8p to 10p in the pound, such is the size of the UK deficit in a country that has not paid its own way since 2001.

Nicky Morgan: This Government are making progress in making sure that we do pay our way. We also believe that people should keep as much as possible of the income they earn. I will come on to talk about household income and the impact APD has on it, but for now I want to address UK competitiveness.
	When comparing different countries’ tax regimes, it is important to view the system as a whole. Comparisons between individual elements can be misleading, especially if companies’ decisions about where to invest are driven by the impact of the system as a whole, not its individual parts. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear many times, the Government are committed to ensuring that the UK has the most competitive tax system of all advanced economies. We want to have a tax regime that supports the attractiveness of all parts of the UK as places to invest in and that ensures that the whole of the UK is open for business.

Graham Stringer: I welcome the hon. Lady to her position. What she is saying about inward investment may or may not be true. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, if we reduced this tax, the Revenue would not lose any income. However, what she is saying cannot possibly apply to tourism. Tourists from all over the world are flying to Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol rather than to Heathrow because of air passenger duty, and certain routes are not coming to regional airports in this country because of air passenger duty. Routes such as Bangkok, Hong Kong, Delhi, Mumbai and Beijing could be coming into Manchester if we did not have air passenger duty.

Nicky Morgan: I return to my original point, which is that if we were to abolish air passenger duty, as is called for in the motion, it would have to be replaced by something else to meet the Government’s commitment to put the nation’s finances on a sound footing and reduce the deficit. Although the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, I have not heard from him—indeed, I have heard from only one hon. Member—a suggestion as to how that revenue could be replaced.
	I will come on to talk about investment and the PWC report. The hon. Member for East Antrim will not be surprised to hear that the Government have some questions about the assumptions that are made in that report.

Nigel Mills: I welcome my hon. Friend to her new post. I accept that the Government cannot fully abolish air passenger duty, but will she consider a short holiday for new long-haul routes, especially at regional airports?
	For example, if there was a new route from East Midlands airport to India, it could be spared APD for the first three to five years to give it a chance to bed in and to become viable. That would have no immediate cost to the Exchequer, but it may well help to generate the growth that we need.

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. Like him, I know East Midlands airport very well as an east midlands Member of Parliament. The difficulty with regional holidays or variations is that they must be quite substantial to change passenger behaviour. That takes us back to my original point that the £3 billion that is raised by APD is a significant contribution to the Exchequer when we are tackling the deficit.

Nigel Evans: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her new position. She said that the changes would have to be significant to alter passenger behaviour. Is not the fact that we have the most expensive APD in the world changing passenger behaviour, because people are taking short-haul flights to Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle, Dublin or even Belfast in order to take longer-haul flights, saving several hundreds of pounds for their families?

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The previous question was about regional variations within the United Kingdom. That is why I was talking about changing behaviour. As I said, this all goes back to my original point that air passenger duty raises £3 billion a year, which is a sum that cannot be ignored if we want to do what this Government were elected to do, which is to repair the nation’s finances. Obviously, my interest in this area is growing as every second of this debate passes.

Graham Stringer: The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. I appreciate her difficulties because, as she says, she is a new pair of eyes on these issues. Will she meet an all-party delegation on behalf of regional airports to discuss these matters in more detail away from the heat of the Chamber?

Nicky Morgan: I am always happy to meet hon. Members to discuss these matters. That sounds like an interesting idea. It might help me to learn more about these issues, as I am doing in this debate.
	In order to make our tax system more competitive, we plan to reduce the rate of corporation tax to 20% from April 2015. At that point, the UK will have the joint lowest corporation tax rate in the G20 and by far the lowest rate in the G7. Increased rate relief on research and development, combined with the patent box, will make the UK one of the most attractive places to innovate. As a result, the latest KPMG annual survey of tax competitiveness rated the UK as the No. 1 most competitive tax regime internationally.
	As well as supporting UK competitiveness, within the constraints of the need to repair the public finances, the Government are also supporting households to meet the cost of living. By April 2014 the Government will have increased the personal allowance to £10,000, which will take 2.7 million people out of income tax altogether. In Northern Ireland, since 2010 the rising personal allowance has already taken 75,000 people out of tax. In recognition of the impact of persistently high pump prices, the fuel duty increase that was planned for
	1 September this year was cancelled, and the Chancellor has also announced his intention to cancel the September 2014 duty increase.
	On aviation taxes, the House will recognise that the UK is one of only four EU countries that does not charge VAT on domestic flights. That stands in contrast to rates of VAT on those flights of 19% in Germany and 20% in the Netherlands. There is also no duty charged on the fuel used in international, and virtually all domestic, flights. Finally, as I have already said, despite the fiscal challenges, the Government have ensured that APD rates have been frozen in real terms since 2010, rising by just £1 for the vast majority of passengers since then. The Government therefore reject the suggestion that we have pushed taxes on aviation too high.
	Let me turn to the report on APD published earlier this year by PricewaterhouseCoopers and to which today’s motion refers. The report claims that abolishing APD would give such a boost to the wider economy that it would make other tax receipts increase by enough to offset the loss of APD revenue—the £3 billion I referred to a moment ago. The report’s conclusions, however, are based on economic models that rely on a series of significant assumptions. In particular, the report makes a series of assumptions about the behavioural impact of scrapping APD—how much business air travel would increase by—and the resulting increase in overall UK productivity.
	The Government have reviewed the report, its modelling and the underlying assumptions carefully. We do not agree with the assumptions needed to justify the claim that abolishing APD would be revenue neutral overall, and, in our view, abolishing APD would have a significantly smaller impact on UK economic activity than PWC has estimated. There would therefore be a smaller increase in other taxes than PWC predicted, with overall tax revenues falling as a result. We also note that under some of the less optimistic assumptions that PWC considered in its report, its models predicted a net loss of revenue in the longer term. As I have said, any revenue loss would either need to be made good by increased revenues from other sources, or would need to be compensated for by further reductions in public spending.
	The Government dispute the claim by PWC that APD is a regressive tax—I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is no longer in his place, as this goes to the heart of what he was talking about. PWC compared APD rates with average weekly household expenditure of different income groups, but its analysis took no account of that fact that not all households pay APD at all. A better measure of fairness would be to compare what households spend on APD, relative to their incomes. Using that measure, statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that lower-income households spend a lower proportion of their disposable income on APD than higher income households.

Sammy Wilson: I am amazed at the way the Minister is trying to deal with this issue. Surely we only measure the impact of a tax on someone who consumes a service. The PWC report looked at various income groups and found that the tax fell far more heavily on those with lowest income levels—that is 45% of travellers—
	compared with those with the highest levels. We are already comparing travellers. Indeed, the tax represented 28% of their average weekly income. If that is not regressive, I do not know what is.

Nicky Morgan: ONS statistics show that lower-income households spend a lower proportion of their disposable income on APD than higher-income households. We are looking at what people actually spend.

Siobhain McDonagh: How would the Minister explain that to my Caribbean constituents, many of whom come from Jamaica or other Caribbean islands and have lived here for 40 or 50 years on low incomes? They now find themselves being excessively taxed in order to stay in contact with their family and friends in their home countries.

Nicky Morgan: I do not know whether the hon. Lady has just arrived in this debate, but we have already discussed Caribbean issues [Interruption.] Well, I think I have dealt with that issue. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I had not appreciated that the hon. Lady was present, but there were questions on this matter from the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and the right hon. Member for Tottenham, and I have addressed the issue of the Caribbean. ONS statistics show that lower-income households spend a lower proportion of their disposable income on APD than higher-income households. In relation to the Caribbean, APD must adhere to international rules on aviation tax, specifically the Chicago convention. The capital city convention on APD ensures that our APD complies with those rules.
	The hon. Member for East Antrim spoke of the impact of APD on Northern Ireland in the context of recently announced changes to the rate of air travel tax in the Republic of Ireland. I thank him for saying that this is a listening Government and for his recognition of the moves we have made in that regard. We recognise the position of Northern Ireland as the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another EU member state with a different rate of aviation tax, which is why we have devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly the power to set APD rates for direct long-haul flights. The Government and the Northern Ireland Executive recognise that decisions on further fiscal devolution of any taxes require careful consideration. We expect recommendations on further devolution to be put to the Government and Northern Ireland Executive by autumn 2014.
	The debate highlights some of the most important issues facing Britain today, including repairing the public finances and bringing debt under control, thus ensuring the stability on which economic recovery depends. APD makes a vital contribution to the Government’s fiscal strategy—it would be irresponsible of us to abandon it—and forms part of the wider tax system that we are making into one of the most competitive in the world. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity to debate those important issues, but I cannot agree with his proposal that the tax should be abolished.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, I point out to the House that nine hon. Members have indicated to me that they wish to catch my eye. In recognition of that fact, and of the time constraint we
	face, I will impose an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions, the first of which will follow the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell).

Catherine McKinnell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend the Democratic Unionist party, and particularly the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for bringing this timely issue before the House. He gave a thoughtful and considered introduction to the debate.
	It is clear from the hon. Gentleman’s contribution that air passenger duty causes concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House and their constituents. More than 100,000 people backed the petition of the fair tax on flying campaign, which resulted in a Backbench Business Committee debate in November 2012. Who can blame people for being concerned when they face a worsening cost-of-living crisis, with soaring energy bills, increasing child care costs, countless other demands on household budgets, and prices rising faster than wages in 39 out of the past 40 months since the Government came to power?
	The fair tax on flying campaign is driven by a number of the UK’s leading travel organisations, including airports, trade associations and destinations. In my new role as shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I look forward to engaging with those bodies and their concerns with my fresh eyes.

Lady Hermon: Given that APD is loathed and detested by our constituents throughout the United Kingdom, will the hon. Lady take this opportunity at the beginning of her contribution to commit any future Labour Government to the complete abolition of APD, and cheer us all up before we go home this evening, please?

Catherine McKinnell: It is interesting that the hon. Lady mentions cheering up—an ONS report out today says that Northern Ireland is one of the happiest places in the UK—but I appreciate that APD is a cause of unhappiness, as was clearly articulated by a number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for East Antrim. I will set out the Labour party’s position on the subject later, but I want to focus on the Government’s approach—[Interruption.] Given the Prime Minister’s performance today, one wonders who is running the country.

Kwasi Kwarteng: To be specific, what exactly is the position of the Labour party, not the Government, on air passenger duty?

Catherine McKinnell: As I said, I will set out the Labour position, but it is interesting that Government Members are keen to deflect responsibility. It is important to reflect on what the Government have said to date on air passenger duty.
	I would, however, first like to reflect on the contribution by the hon. Member for East Antrim, who made a well-thought-out speech, particularly on the 2013 PricewaterhouseCoopers report into the impact of APD. The report concluded that APD does not just affect the travel and tourism sector, but the economy as a whole. PWC was commissioned by British Airways, Virgin
	Atlantic, Ryanair and easyJet, and suggested that the abolition of APD could result in a 0.45% increase per year in GDP and the creation of almost 60,000 jobs between now and 2020. The Government dispute those figures, but I will return to them later in my speech.

Mike Thornton: I congratulate the hon. Lady and thank her for giving way. Is it not significant that the companies that would benefit most from getting rid of APD want to get rid of it? Is it not pretty obvious that they would back the report’s conclusions?

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind wishes. The companies commissioned the report, but it is for the Government to set out their position and their own findings. I would like to focus on the Government’s statistical analysis and assessment of APD. I know the value added to the north-east economy by Newcastle airport. I know how critical certainty and stability on issues such as APD are for the airport and the businesses that rely on it, and for the export-led recovery that the hon. Member for East Antrim referred to on a number of occasions. Newcastle airport alone supports 7,800 jobs across the north-east region, with 3,200 on site, and more than £250 million of UK exports were shipped through the airport in the last year—facts that speak for themselves. It is therefore little wonder that the Government’s dither and lack of direction has caused significant frustration for passengers, the travel and tourism sector, and the industry as a whole.
	What have we heard so far from the Government on APD? The Conservative 2010 election manifesto pledged to:
	“Reform Air Passenger Duty to encourage a switch to fuller and cleaner planes”.
	The Liberal Democrats went further, suggesting that they would ensure that pollution was “properly taxed” by replacing the per-passenger APD with a per-plane duty and that air freight would be taxed for the first time. They also said that they would introduce an additional, higher rate of PPD on domestic flights if realistic, alternative and less-polluting travel was available.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Lady makes a good point about the views of the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats held a multitude of views in opposition and hold another multitude of views now they find themselves in government, so her words do not surprise me at all.

Catherine McKinnell: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next comment. It is important not to take a Liberal Democrat election manifesto at face value, but one might reasonably have expected to see some action from Ministers given that the coalition agreement promised that the Government would:
	“reform the taxation of air travel by switching from a per-passenger to a per-plane duty.”
	and
	“ensure that a proportion of any increased revenues over time will be used to help fund increases in the personal allowance.”
	The Chancellor then announced in the 2010 Budget that major changes to APD, including switching to a per-plane duty, would be subjected to public consultation, but nothing happened, and almost one year later, at Budget 2011, he announced that the Government would
	consult on simplifying the structure of APD. In between, the fair tax on flying campaign was launched not only to raise concerns about this issue, but to elicit a modicum of action or at least certainty or clarity from the Government. Budget 2011, however, saw the Chancellor U-turn on the coalition agreement pledge made less than 12 months earlier to switch to a per-plane duty, informing the House:
	“we had hoped that we could replace the per passenger tax with a per plane tax. We have tried every possible option, but have reluctantly had to accept that all are currently illegal under international law. So we will work with others to try to get that law changed.”
	Will the Minister update the House on how that work on changing the law is going?
	At Budget 2011, the Chancellor went on to state:
	“In the meantime, we are consulting today on how to improve the existing and rather arbitrary bands that appear to believe that the Caribbean is further away than California. We will also seek to bring private jets, which pay no duty at all, into the scope of taxation.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 963.]
	The APD rate rise due in April 2011 was deferred to April 2012.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Catherine McKinnell: Not just yet, because I need to make some progress.
	At the same time, we saw an 8% increase take effect, with APD rates thereafter rising in line with inflation. As announced at Budget 2010 and then again at Budget 2011, the Government did indeed consult on the structure of APD, in a consultation that covered several areas, including private jets, different tax bands, premium economy flights, flights from regional airports and the possible devolution of APD. The consultation paper raised the concern that the existing four-band structure was damaging UK competitiveness and contained several anomalies, such as the higher rate on Caribbean flights than on flights to destinations in the USA, about which several hon. Members have raised concerns.
	The paper set out two options: returning to the pre-2009 structure of two tax bands and a different rate between two classes of travel; and combining the two higher bands for flights over 4,000 miles to create a three-band structure and retaining different rates between different classes of travel—an option, however, that would not have resolved the Caribbean concern. The consultation also raised the prospect of a lower rate of APD for flights from regional airports and the question of whether APD should remain a UK-wide tax or be devolved.
	The Government spent the best part of a year apparently listening to interested parties that took considerable time and effort to respond in good faith to the consultation. And then what? For the whole of the UK, apart from announcing that APD would be extended to business flights, they did absolutely nothing. In their response to the consultation, they confirmed in December 2011 that they did not propose to make any changes to the tax’s banding structure, to how different classes of flight were taxed or to the application of APD to the regions. It is little wonder then that industry players described the consultation as
	“a sham and a waste of taxpayers’ money”.
	Of course, we saw action on Northern Ireland, following the July 2011 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report, which urged the abolition of APD on flights to and from airports in Northern Ireland owing to the specific problem faced there—direct competition from airports in the Republic and its lower rates of APD. In order to maintain the transatlantic route from Belfast to Newark, the Chancellor announced in September 2011 that the APD rate on long-haul flights using airports in Northern Ireland would be cut, because Continental Airlines had, unsustainably, been paying the APD itself at a cost of some £3.2 million a year. Then, in the Finance Act 2012, APD on direct long-haul flights departing from Northern Ireland was devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, which then abolished it on these flights from 1 January 2013.
	Clearly, flights from Northern Ireland face specific challenges, as I have noted and as was set out clearly by the hon. Member for East Antrim. It is the only part of the UK that has a land border with another EU member state. George Best Belfast City airport and Belfast International both compete directly with Dublin in attracting airlines, routes and passengers. So the Opposition supported the Government’s move on APD in relation to long-haul flights and Northern Ireland. Given that Northern Ireland also largely relies on air transport for its link to the rest of the UK, we are sympathetic to the argument for reducing APD on all routes from Northern Ireland, but we would need to examine the impact of that in the round, including on the block grant, which the hon. Member for East Antrim acknowledged.
	Other options are, of course, available. We could consider protected routes, which already exist in the UK—the air link to the Scottish islands being an example—with Belfast to Heathrow being suggested as the obvious choice. But the Government’s piecemeal approach to dealing with APD, an issue that affects the UK as a whole, is regrettable, particularly given the importance of long-term certainty on this issue for industry and the wider economy. Leaving aside the changes we have seen in Northern Ireland, it appears that the Government have simply given up on this issue altogether.
	In May, the Select Committee on Transport published a number of proposals on APD as part of its wider inquiry into aviation strategy. Included in the recommendations were that: the Treasury should conduct and publish a fully costed study of the impact of APD on the UK economy; the Government should carry out an objective analysis of policies such as differential rates of APD; the Government should conduct a 12-month trial on an APD holiday for new services operating out of airports not in the south-east; and the Government should not further devolve APD at this stage, as it may have negative impacts, for example, in the north of England. Some of those recommendations stemmed from the February 2013 PricewaterhouseCoopers report, to which reference is made in the motion.
	Ministers appear to have totally dismissed both reports, rejecting all the Select Committee’s recommendations apart from the one on devolution. They have stated:
	“The Government disagrees with the findings of the PwC report. The Government believes that abolishing APD would have a smaller impact on GDP than the report implies and would cause a net loss of tax receipts. This reduction in receipts would need to be paid for through tax rises or spending cuts elsewhere, which would themselves have an economic impact.”
	The response went on to state:
	“The Government has no plans to undertake a review of the economic impact of APD at this point.”
	So, the Government do not believe the findings of others about the economic impact of APD, but have no plans to verify them or otherwise undertake their own review.
	There is no doubt that APD brings in a significant amount of funding to the Treasury, with a yield of £3 billion anticipated this year and next, as the Minister mentioned a good number of times. The matter does need to be considered in the round, but the Government’s unscientific approach to this issue seemed to be a cavalier one to take to economic growth, given that we have had three years of a flatlining economy.
	The motion states:
	“that it is the intention of the Prime Minister to review green taxes; and calls on the Government, as part of that review, to give high priority to the abolition of air passenger duty.”
	In preparing my comments for today, I wondered whether this review actually existed, but the Prime Minister seems to have confirmed it at questions, because he is apparently waking up to the fact that struggling families need support and believes that this is the way forward. We then read, however, that this review has been kiboshed by the Liberal Democrats before it has even begun. Perhaps the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury will shed some light on that issue, too, in his concluding comments.
	In conclusion, despite various promises of action on this issue, we have seen anything but. The reforms in Northern Ireland addressed the very specific situation in that part of the UK, but this issue affects the whole of our country. After three years of a flatlining economy, and with households up and down the country in the midst of a cost of living crisis, the Government’s complete lack of direction on APD has been extremely unhelpful at a time when family purse strings have been tightened and businesses have been crying out for support. The lack of certainty on this issue from the Government simply risks investment decisions being delayed and future development being jeopardised, which, crucially, puts jobs at risk, too. This just is not good enough, but it is what we have come to expect.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I intervened during the speech made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) to ask what the Labour party’s policy on this issue actually was. The hon. Lady made a good speech, but she did not answer my question. She spoke for 17 minutes without providing any clarity on the Labour party’s position, and I remain unsure about the nature of her objections—if they are objections—to this tax.
	It is important to review the tax’s history. It was introduced in 1994 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and at that time it was not a green tax. Like most taxes, it was brought in as a revenue-raising exercise and there was no mention whatever of its environmental impact. It was only under the previous Labour Government that the tax mutated into a green tax. It was doubled in 2007, and the banding was introduced in 2008. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington
	(Ms Abbott) have spoken of how their constituents who travel to the Caribbean are particularly affected by the banding, but we did not hear any mention that that banding was introduced by the Labour Government. It seems peculiar that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North has not mentioned that Government’s contribution to the development of the tax and nor has she set out the Labour party’s current position on it—that remains perfectly obscure.
	We need to consider the deficit. As a free-market Conservative, I do not like taxation, and I yield to no one in my desire and enthusiasm to cut taxes and to stimulate the economy through reducing the burden of taxation to promote growth and enterprise, and to encourage risk-taking and other forms of business enterprise. However, I recognise that we have a deficit, and that deficit completely shapes the nature of our debates on taxation—[Interruption.] I sense an intervention coming on.

Angus MacNeil: I was trying to resist the urge to intervene, but the deficit in the UK has been in existence since 2001. The UK has been in a fiscal black hole since then, which was seven years before the economic crisis; it has not been able to pay its way since that time.

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Gentleman shows an admirable grasp of our recent economic history; he is absolutely right. From 2001 to today, we have consistently run a deficit. Conservative Members have always been struck by the fact that, although the economy was actually growing during the first six of those years, between 2001 and 2007, the Government of the time saw fit to run a deficit in every one of those years. The present Government inherited a deficit of £160 billion—12% of our gross domestic product—and the fact that it has now been reduced by a third represents a remarkable success. It now stands at somewhere between £110 billion and £115 billion, depending on how the figure is calculated. In the context of deficit reduction, any Government would be reluctant to abolish air passenger duty in a peremptory way, as it brings in more than £3 billion a year. We all recognise that the deficit is a real thing—it is an ongoing annual sum that we have to close—and the £3 billion a year raised by APD makes a real contribution to its reduction.
	I fully understand all the supply-side arguments. I understand that, if we were to abolish the tax, we could perhaps reap economic rewards at some future date. However, those who promote reducing or abolishing it must tell us how they would replace that revenue from day one. Where would they find the £3 billion that APD currently brings in? Conservative Members are familiar with general tax-cutting arguments. One could argue for the abolition of most taxes on the basis that that would stimulate growth, and that the money would be recouped in the long run through increased tax revenues. However, we have to face the fact of a real deficit, which is something that Opposition Members never seem to acknowledge in their speeches.
	I was entertained by the speech made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who put forward in a typically trenchant way his views on green taxes, the environment and all the rest of it. I have often heard such arguments in the pub in Staines among my constituents and others, so I am familiar with them, but I shall not touch on green taxes, because what I am concerned about is the deficit.
	If we were balancing our books and if we had succeeded a fiscally responsible Government, I would be among the first to say that this APD tax should be abolished. I would absolutely recognise the compelling argument that lowering taxes increases business enterprise. However, because we run a deficit, I feel that the £3 billion coming into the Exchequer is too high an amount simply to discard and forget about.
	We need to look at the effects of such taxation on the aviation industry. I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) who made that point that although APD is quite high, the industry is expanding and more people are flying. From the Government’s point of view, as a revenue collector, the tax is not impeding the growth of the industry, so it would be irresponsible for them to forgo such tax revenue, especially given our record deficit.
	Going forward to a time when we are balancing the books under the next Conservative Government, I will be at the forefront of those arguing to abolish APD. Earlier in this Parliament, I wrote and often said that while, in principle, the tax might not be the best thing, there are specific budgetary requirements and conditions of the moment that make APD essential.
	We have to consider corporation tax and taxation generally in the round. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on her appointment as Economic Secretary. She cited the fact that our corporation tax rates are extremely competitive. The rate of 20% is among the lowest, if not the lowest, in the OECD. In that context, general taxation on companies and business has been reduced, and we are seeing flickerings of growth—we expect encouraging growth figures at the end of this week. In the round, we can therefore say that the Government’s policy is working. The deficit reduction is happening and growth is beginning to return to Britain. Now is not the time to slacken the deficit reduction plan, so I fully understand why APD is necessary: to further our principal aim of deficit reduction.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The time limit will have to be reviewed, probably when the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means takes over from me. I am not changing it at this moment, but contributions that are significantly shorter than eight minutes would enable all colleagues to get in, rather than some being excluded. I know that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is a sensitive and considerate fellow who will wish to take account of my strictures on this matter.

Angus MacNeil: Indeed you are right, Mr Speaker. To reciprocate your acknowledgement that I am a sensitive and caring fellow, I shall try to be as quick, brief and short as possible.
	At the outset, I want to express a short apology because I might have to leave the Chamber to fulfil a previous engagement. If that happens, it is absolutely no comment on the debate, which has been riveting in the extreme. I am sure that those watching the monitors
	in their offices, as well as people at home, will be enjoying the debate and waiting for the next gripping instalment after mine.
	Air passenger duty is one of the most damaging of the Westminster interventions in the Scottish economy. We should remember that, for the past 30 years, Scotland has on average paid more tax per person than the UK. This year, Scotland will pay 9.9% of all UK taxes, while it has only 8.4% of the total UK population. That is the situation without a tax system that is designed for Scotland’s needs.
	Just about all those in Scotland who have been closely associated with the APD issue see the wisdom of devolving APD to Scotland. We know from our internal party points of view that the people who are better informed about the independence process in Scotland are those who are more likely to support it, so the Westminster Government need to understand that this policy supports arguments for independence. Of course, I welcome that, in a way, but the Government should bear in mind the downside: in the meantime, the policy is damaging Scotland’s economy, as well as the economies of other areas under centralised Westminster control. I am sure that an independent Scotland would run an air passenger duty regime if it were more in sympathy with Scotland’s needs.
	As I suggested, we do not have taxes that are designed for Scotland, and if ever something crystallised that point, it is the issue of APD. Scotland is being fleeced by APD. It is estimated that, in each of the four years between 2012 and 2016, 2.1 million fewer passengers will go through Scottish airports as a result of it. APD is a demand-management tax. Heathrow and other London airports benefited from preferential treatment by successive UK Governments for decades because bilateral air agreements with a host of other countries stipulated that London airports must be used. That policy has come back to haunt those Governments. There is now a shortage of runways in the south-east of England, because the hub that was put in place cannot cope with the demand that was deliberately created, and the solution has been this congestion tax of the skies to slow traffic into Heathrow and other London airports.
	In some ways, the Government’s demand-management tool has indeed been successful. The London airports are nearing full capacity, and APD has succeeded in controlling the pressing demand that has resulted from the lack of runways in London. However, London is losing passengers and commerce to other parts of the current United Kingdom, such as Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England. The solution is surely to devolve the policy and leave it in the hands of those who could manage it better because they are closer to the problem. Those who are distant from it advance all sorts of odd arguments, as we have heard today.
	It would even benefit the Treasury if APD—the gatekeeper tax—were removed, because an increased number of people visiting the country would be likely to increase commerce. The Prime Minister has said that the UK has a lopsided economy—he is right—but will his Government act? Will they help by taking the one step for which a host of parties across the House have called? Will they right the wrong that was caused by lopsided international bilateral air agreements favouring one area of the UK by devolving APD and giving control of it to other areas? Unfortunately, they will
	not, but I am sure that those who are listening to the debate will understand why I argue for an independent Scotland, even if other Members in the Chamber may choose not to do so. I should add, in fairness, that there are a few Members here who do choose to, but they are keeping their heads down at the moment.
	It need not be like this, however. Friends in Catalonia tell me that while Madrid may be notoriously intransigent and knuckle-headed on many issues—a sentiment that friends in Gibraltar would share—it has shown some sense in one respect, on which London should follow suit, by abolishing APD, or reducing it by 100%, on new routes. Barcelona alone has gained 37 new routes this year: to Islamabad and Karachi in Pakistan, Lebanon, Iceland, Kos in Greece, Bucharest, Kiev, Oslo, Helsinki, Luxembourg, Bergen, Pristina, Kristiansand and Hamburg, to name but a few. Such is the growth of Barcelona as a result of that more intelligent approach. Reductions in APD have been shown to benefit a number of other countries.
	The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) advanced some tremendous arguments, to which the Treasury ought to listen. As a former Treasury Minister, he ran the Treasury in Northern Ireland by balancing the books. The UK Treasury does not balance its books and has not done so since 2001.
	Prestwick, the Scottish airport that has been most affected by APD, lost 14% of its traffic in 2012, and just the other week it had to be nationalised by the Scottish Government because the alternatives were unfortunately unthinkable. The Scottish Government feel that Scotland is a high-quality aviation market. It has a record of establishing successive intercontinental air routes with high load factors, including business-class traffic. They believe that there is considerable potential for improving Scotland’s international air connections, but the UK Government’s punitive APD rates are seriously hampering that process. York Aviation has pointed out that APD rates have rocketed since 2007, with short-haul travellers being hit by a rise of about 160%. The price paid by a family of four travelling to Spain has increased from £20 to £52 since 2007, and the price that they would pay to travel to the United States has increased from £80 to £268—a shocking rise.
	PricewaterhouseCoopers says that the reduction or abolition of APD could bring about immediate and permanent increases in UK GDP worth around £16 billion in the first three years alone, which backs up the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim. Increased revenue from other taxes would more than compensate the Exchequer for the revenue forgone by the abolition of APD. Indeed, the dividend in the first year alone would be half a billion pounds.
	Passengers are losing out as a result of opaque methods of ticketing. Fully flexible tickets mean that people get back the entire cost of the ticket and the taxes if they do not fly, but there is a question for those travelling on restricted tickets who would lose their ticket price, because they also seem to be losing the taxes they have paid. The penalties imposed by airlines seem exactly to match the amount of APD taxation, so I would like the Government to look into this opaque process.
	What do these penal levels of APD mean for Scotland? York Aviation says that by 2016 Edinburgh airport would be losing 1 million passengers due to high APD rates each year for four years, while Glasgow would lose
	700,000 a year and Aberdeen about 200,000 a year. That shows the economic damage that is being done to Scotland’s economy.
	Disappointingly, we have seen no significant difference between Labour and the Conservatives today, so the message to Scots is, “Business as usual, regardless of who gets into office in Westminster.” That is why, on 18 September next year, we will vote for independence in Scotland.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. The time limit will have to be reduced with immediate effect to six minutes.

Andrew Percy: I am afraid the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) made two incorrect observations at the start of his speech: that he would speak for much less time than the time limit, which was then eight minutes; and, secondly, that he was looking forward to hearing the gripping contribution following his speech. He had obviously not seen the speaking list. I cannot promise that my contribution will be either interesting or gripping, but it will at least be less than eight minutes now.
	I congratulate the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is not currently in her place, on her contribution. She is new to the role. I was, of course, waiting by my phone at reshuffle time hoping to be offered that post, but it was not to be. She did an excellent job at the Dispatch Box today. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on taking up her new position on the Opposition Front-Bench team, but I will just say that it would be nice if those on the Labour Benches showed a little contrition about how we got into the economic situation we are in when talking about the cost of living, and perhaps took some ownership of the problems they bequeathed to the country in 2010. We are delighted to be dealing with them and we are delighted to go on doing so, but we would sometimes like those who are guilty of having created them in the first place to accept some of the blame.
	My view on APD has changed considerably since the fair tax on flying campaign of a few years ago. As there was a lot of terrible economic news at that time, not least to do with our massive deficit, it seemed to me and many other Members that to be asking, effectively, to make holidays less expensive was not the most appropriate thing to do.
	My views have changed slightly over time, however. APD can easily be dismissed as a tax that can be avoided, and for some that is true, but for many businesses and individuals—particularly, as we have heard, in certain parts of the country, including Northern Ireland—it is a tax that cannot be avoided.
	Since joining the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have been growing concerned about the impact APD is having on our regional airports, especially after a meeting with representatives of Continental Airlines, who explained in great detail and depth the impact that it has had on the company. Heathrow will always be successful, but airports such as mine—Humberside airport—and Leeds Bradford, East Midlands and
	Doncaster airports have struggled, and continue to struggle, to find new routes as it is a lot cheaper to fly from Schiphol or Dublin.
	When I was looking to book a holiday recently, I found it would have been cheaper for me to fly from Leeds or Manchester to Dublin and then connect on to the ongoing flight. That is counter-intuitive and, it would seem, a little perverse. Although I am no economist, it is clear to me that that is not good for our economy. It is time that we looked at the issue.
	I accept that there is a take of £3 billion from air passenger duty. I have not had a chance to look through the methodology of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report or to analyse that in any great depth, but there is a solution to the problem of how to find £3 billion: it is called leaving the European Union. That might net us a bit more than £3 billion—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I knew I would get a cheer from hon. Members on the Democratic Unionist Benches, who have a sound view on the subject. I do understand that any reduction in APD would have an impact on the Treasury. That is why it is time for a proper review to establish the extent of that impact.
	The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) reminded me that, when people made arguments about beer duty in the past, the response from the Treasury was always “This will cost us money. How will we make up the difference?” That has been turned on its head now, as we seem to have accepted that a cut in beer duty can bring in more money.
	I remember air passenger duty being presented as a green tax. I know there has been some discussion about whether it is a green tax, a light green tax or a pale green tax. It certainly was presented as a green tax and many people have argued that it is such a tax, so I hope that it will be in the mix in any review, in line with the Prime Minister’s statements today about wanting to review green taxes and being honest about green taxes. It strikes me that we will not have a particularly honest debate with the public about APD or about energy bills unless we are prepared to open up the whole debate about green taxes and their impact not just on energy bills, but on our whole economy.
	I represent an area with many carbon-intensive industries. We are still waiting to hear what is going to happen with the assistance for them. Green taxes are having a massive impact on them and an increasing number of people feel that the country is being hamstrung by those taxes. If we can throw APD into that discussion, all the better. People who use regional airports are most affected and in my area incomes are much lower than in other parts of the country, so APD has a disproportionate impact on the poorest parts of the country.
	There is much that I agree with in the motion. I will not vote against it, but I have yet to decide whether I will support it. I call on the Minister to pay heed to the sensible comments that have been made by many Members in all parts of the House, particularly the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), whom I congratulate on his speech. It is time for a proper assessment of the impact of APD on our economy and on our citizens, and I hope the Minister will respond in those terms.

Siobhain McDonagh: I shall address the issue on behalf of my Caribbean constituents, and report how angered and disappointed they are about the banding of Caribbean countries. Not only are my Caribbean constituents angry and disappointed, but so are their original home Governments at the way in which the banding impacts upon them and the development of their industries and tourism industries.
	The Caribbean community in my constituency came to Mitcham and Morden in the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s. They did the jobs that nobody else wanted to do. They drove the buses, built the schools, dug the roads and worked in the hospitals, just as my own family who came from Ireland in the 1940s did. They never earned much but they worked hard. They looked after their families at home and in the Caribbean, and they contributed hugely to our community through youth facilities, churches and clubs for the elderly. They feel they have earned, and they have earned, their right to be here. They are proud of being British, they are proud of being Londoners, but they are also proud of the country that they came from.
	Members of the Caribbean community work hard, and they save hard to go home every so often to see how their towns and cities are getting on and how their family and their friends are. Air passenger duty is a tax on their ability to do that. Whatever accounting company came up with whatever report, nobody can argue that for a Caribbean lady or gentleman in my constituency who lives on a pension and an occupational pension, APD does not disproportionately affect them in their efforts to stay close to their ageing families. It clearly does.
	I am not arguing that APD should be scrapped; I am asking the Treasury to look at the banding. Nothing is set in stone; these are conversations that I and other Labour Members have had with Ministers of this Government and the previous Government. We are where we are because of the Chicago convention and the ticketing rules that exist for the airline industry. But it does not make sense to people in the Caribbean, or to me, that to go to Kingston, which is closer than Los Angeles, 25% more tax has to be paid. There is a way to look at the banding and to alter it, to recognise the contribution of those people, their families and communities, and to accept and respect the deep and long-standing connection that we have with those individual Caribbean countries and their Governments. They, like us, are going through hard times. They wish to develop their tourism industries in a price-sensitive market. Anything that we can do to help them out of respect for their communities’ work in our country and in our capital city would be gratefully received. It is not beyond the wit of the Government to do precisely that.

Jim Sheridan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on securing the debate. As usual, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is no longer in his place, blames everything on the Westminster Government. I noticed that a number of right hon. and hon. Friends found that rather funny. But it is not funny to anyone who lives
	and breathes amongst the people who want to break up the UK. The people of Scotland want a serious Government with serious politicians, and that is what we are hoping for. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view that in September next year people will vote for independence. I sincerely hope not.
	Several hon. Members have referred to the devolution of APD, which I will keep an open mind on. If it proves to be to the benefit of the people of Scotland, fine, let us go ahead and devolve APD to the Scottish Parliament. But one question has to be answered, and perhaps the Minister will do so when he replies. If it is devolved, what proportion of money will come out of the block grant to pay for that? Someone, somewhere has to tell us exactly what that will cost. If APD is devolved and it is abolished, that money must come from the health service, education or somewhere else. It would be helpful, when we start blaming the Westminster Government for all our ills, if somebody from the separatist party told us where the money is going.
	While I am on the subject of other countries, I have a document here that says clearly that in Malta APD was abolished in 2008, and one of the reason given was that it was
	“Removed following legal challenge from the European Commission. Tax described as discriminatory.”
	It would be helpful to know the reason for that. One aspect of APD that I find particularly discriminatory is that people in the north are being hammered twice. They have a double whammy if they travel through the London hub airports when going on to continental flights or flights to America. Even if there is no agreement to abolish APD, it would be helpful to abolish the double whammy.
	Glasgow airport in my constituency contributes a great deal to the Scottish economy, including 5,000 jobs, but it pays more than £7.9 billion in tax. I am particularly annoyed that this will cost Scotland more than 2 million passengers and 5% of long-haul demand may be lost. Like a number of colleagues, I am finding that people in Scotland, particularly the holidaymakers and their families, are now going through Schiphol, Paris and elsewhere, which means that London and Gatwick are losing out. There is some impact on the London airports and it would be helpful if the Minister said how many people are involved.
	APD also has an impact on Scotland’s tourism industry. Scotland has a lot to offer tourists. The Commonwealth games are coming to Glasgow in 2014, which many people from various parts of the world will attend. I am sure that they will not want to be affected by this tax either, and hopefully they will want to visit this country again. York Aviation estimates that 148,000 trips and £77 million in visit expenditure could be lost over the next three years and that by 2016 APD will cost the Scottish economy up to £210 million a year in lost tourism. One of the difficulties with this debate is that there is an awful lot of repetition, so I apologise to those in the Chamber and outside for using all these statistics, but unfortunately they have to be repeated. I take the view that the more we repeat something, the better the chance of achieving it.
	This is about the whole United Kingdom, not just Scotland. Frontier Economics estimates that there will be around 3 million fewer trips each year to and from
	UK airports, that spending by overseas residents in the UK will fall by £475 million a year and that our GDP will be reduced by £2.6 billion a year, with the potential loss of 77,000 jobs. I do not think that this Government, or any Government, should contemplate the loss of such a significant number of jobs. A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers has shown that abolishing APD would boost the UK’s GDP by 0.46% in the first year, provide 60,000 extra jobs in the long term and increase revenues from income tax and VAT, with a net benefit of £500 million in the first year.
	I make a plea to the coalition Government—unfortunately, the previous Government did not take appropriate action—to listen to what has been said on both sides of the House on the impact APD is having on the aviation industry and take appropriate steps to help our constituents.

Margaret Ritchie: I commend the motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and welcome both the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is no longer in her place, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who is also no longer in her place, to their new roles.
	I want to address air passenger duty in the context of the UK Government’s broader tourism and transport strategies. When it comes to tourism policy, it really is a tale of two Governments. Last week the Irish Government announced in their budget that they will be retaining a 9% rate of VAT for the tourism sector and entirely scrapping their air passenger tax. The UK Government, however, have presented us with the highest airport taxes in the world and raised VAT to 20%, with no dispensation for the tourism industry. Although I commend the Irish Government and hope that those measures bring more visitors across the island, this clearly puts businesses in the north of Ireland at a huge disadvantage. The UK Government urgently need to look at introducing similar measures, particularly in Northern Ireland, to enable our businesses to compete on a fair footing with businesses in the rest of Ireland. I hope that this debate will spur them on to do just that.
	The rate of APD in the UK is the highest in the world and has risen by over 300% over the past five years. We in Northern Ireland are particularly vulnerable to that excessive duty owing to our reliance on air travel, which is dictated by our location, as has already been referred to in the debate. The rate is choking growth in the sector by having a severe impact on visitor numbers and is hurting our whole economy, especially those businesses that rely on exporting goods.
	The motion refers to the recent PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which contends that lowering APD would be, at worst, budget neutral and would almost certainly boost growth and create jobs. Such evidence supports the measures taken by the Irish Government to get rid of their equivalent duty rate, and I find it hard to see why the UK Chancellor cannot respond with similar measures to support the UK economy—or at least, as suggested by the Transport Committee, commission research into the matter. Perhaps the Exchequer Secretary will deal with that issue in his response.
	Obviously, the Chancellor would point to the devolution to the Assembly of long-haul APD, which was particularly welcome. However, domestic flights make up the vast bulk of flights out of Belfast International and Belfast City airports. There is also the slightly bizarre situation in which flights to London, Manchester and Glasgow are taxed at a higher rate than those to Newark, New Jersey.
	Another point that should be emphasised is that the APD cut for long-haul flights was not some generous Treasury handout, but has to be paid out of the Northern Ireland block grant; as a former Minister for Finance, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) will know all about that. It was the decision of the Northern Ireland Executive to prioritise growth and tourist numbers by cutting the tax and we in Northern Ireland should be given a similar dispensation over the short-haul rate. Our geographical location makes us especially vulnerable to the pressures exerted by a high rate of APD, as someone going to or from Europe or further afield will often need to make two journeys.
	We cannot ignore the wider context of our tourism industry. I have called here for a similar cut in VAT for businesses. Cutting both would mean much for tourism, which is one of Northern Ireland’s principal economic drivers, along with agriculture and fisheries; our manufacturing sector is now smaller. I have no doubt that the measure will involve assessing transport and infrastructure on a north-south basis in the island. That will require a maturity, on the part of all those who have spoken today, in harnessing the power that an all-island economy will release. For too long, our approach has been dominated by physical and psychological borders that do not exist in the mind of most people.
	The Government talk a great deal about boosting the private sector in Northern Ireland and rebalancing the economy. One way to do that would be to lower APD on short-haul flights as well as lowering VAT on tourism.

George Freeman: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and her colleague the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I welcome the new Economic Secretary to the Front Bench; I have no doubt that she will be a huge asset to the Government and the House.
	I declare a slight interest, as I have cousins in Northern Ireland and, in my prior career, I spent far too many hours on internal flights, particularly to Scotland. Like many, I have enjoyed city breaks with my family; I shall spare the House the details of our recent trip to Amsterdam.
	The democratisation of air travel in recent years has been a force for good, opening up to millions of families opportunities previously denied them. Millions more people are enjoying the thrill and experience of easy air travel and all that it opens up. Air travel does, of course, have a high carbon footprint, but just as the air industry has achieved stunning breakthroughs in safety through the extraordinary application of private sector expertise, investment, innovation and science, I have no doubt that it will be a force in demonstrating potential for energy-efficient air travel as well.
	My principal reason for speaking this afternoon is to discuss the business of air travel and the role of air travel in business and in the economic predicament faced by this country. We are rightly—I commend the Government for it—putting an emphasis on the rebalanced economy and unlocking the power of our regions and cities to drive a new model of innovation-led growth, and air travel is an important part of that.
	However, let us turn to the charge sheet that the House is presented with this afternoon and the motion, which calls for air passenger duty to be scrapped. The first charge is that it is a green tax, but, as the hon. Member for East Antrim said, it was not introduced and justified on that basis. However, he explained that even if it were, that would be no reason for not getting rid of it. This country, the western world and the whole world face a challenge in increasing energy efficiency and reducing the carbon footprint. Although that would not be a reason for introducing APD, it is worth bearing it in mind that we need to send a signal that rail travel, car-sharing and other forms of energy-efficient transport are to be encouraged.
	The second charge is that the tax is regressive. The data in the ONS publication “The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income, 2011/12”, which I commend to colleagues, make it clear that it is not regressive; in fact, it is no more so than VAT. I think we would all love to get rid of that too—certainly colleagues in the House today would love it; we would like to get rid of most taxes—but we are not in a position where we can afford that luxury.
	The third charge, interestingly, is that the tax is disproportionate. In fact, the Government have limited the rise in APD to inflation in the period 2010-11 to 2013-14, and in this year’s Budget they ensured that the rate will remain constant in real terms. This afternoon I looked online and found an air ticket to Berlin for £80, £13 of which is APD. That does not seem to be a prohibitive level of tax that will put people off.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend share my sentiment that it is good to be on the Benches of a Government who realise the need for tax competition? We realise the need for competitive corporation tax rates and income tax rates; surely APD is a tax and we need to be competitive on that too. We have the highest APD in Europe. Of the 27 countries in the European Union, only six charge APD, and the Republic of Ireland is going to reduce it to zero in April next year. Should my hon. Friend not bear it in mind that we need to compete?

George Freeman: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He must have spotted my notes, because my very next point is that we need to view this in the wider context of business and tax competitiveness. I hugely welcome the fact that the Government have committed to reduce corporation tax from 28% to 23% and, in due course, to 20%, meaning we are constantly cited as one of the top three in the G8 on tax competitiveness, as stated in the 2012 KPMG global survey. That is a strong signal to global businesses that we are open for business, and it supports my hon. Friend’s point that we need to view this in the context of wider support for businesses and tax competitiveness.
	The fourth charge is that the tax is bad for Northern Ireland. In this respect, I have some sympathy with the case made by colleagues from the Province. The fact that the Republic has cut APD creates a particularly difficult situation in Northern Ireland. The Minister said, encouragingly, that the Northern Ireland economy is not showing signs of suffering as a result, with very high growth and new jobs being created. That is a testament to the creativity and entrepreneurialism of the people of Northern Ireland. The changes made to the tax in November 2011, which reduced long-haul rates to the same as those for short-haul, and the devolution of the matter to the Assembly are important and welcome measures. However, I have a lot of sympathy with the argument that locally, given the situation in the Republic, there is a particular problem that the Government will need to look at.
	The truth—an inconvenient truth, to borrow a phrase—consists of three points. As a generation, a Parliament and a Government, we face, and have to deal with, the most massive crisis in our public finances. We inherited from the previous Government £1.2 trillion of debt—£5,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Debt interest alone is now the fourth biggest item of Government expenditure, and it is set to rise, if the coalition has not acted, to £76 billion a year in interest payments. We have a structural crisis in the public finances—in pensions, in welfare, in health and in debt interest.
	Despite the very best efforts of the Government to contain the crisis and make sure that they do not trigger a downward spiral in public confidence in the economy, we still face a huge challenge to restore our public finances. We do not have money to spare. There is no such thing as a free tax cut; the closest thing is a tax cut on wealth creation. That is why I support the steps that the Treasury has taken on corporation tax to put in place a competitive tax environment for our businesses and why, in particular, I support a new deal for start-up businesses—the people who are at the coal face of creating new jobs. The truth is that APD is not a tax on business creation; it is a tax on air travel, which is not the same thing.
	Finally, this tax raises £2.8 billion a year, and that figure is set to rise to £3.8 billion in 2016. That is a significant amount of money. Interestingly, it is nearly the same amount as that which the Government have given away in a fuel duty cut, which has caused huge reductions in income at the Exchequer and has a relatively low impact on people’s pockets. Abolishing APD would have a small impact on GDP and hard-working families, but it would lead to a major £4 billion cut in our deficit credibility. I hope Ministers resist it.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the Economic Secretary, who is not in her place, and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on their appointments to their new positions.
	I am sure that every Member has been contacted about the issue of air passenger duty. A gentleman who is not from my constituency visits my office because he has no representation. His constituency Member is a Sinn Fein MP who does not contribute at Westminster, but who is part of a team who have drawn £600,000 in expenses from here. The gentleman, therefore, has to ask another MP, who happens to be me, to represent
	him at Westminster. Every time he books a flight he calls in to see me and asks when the Government are going to change their tactics and do the right thing on APD to the UK mainland.
	It is clear that APD is hurting the individual in Northern Ireland, who is somewhat restricted in travelling to the mainland. I believe that we, along with some parts of Scotland, are feeling the pinch of the decision to keep this tax more than others. The Northern Ireland Assembly and my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) in particular, who was wearing his other hat as the Finance Minister at the time, abolished APD for long-haul flights out of Northern Ireland in order to secure business, ensure investment opportunities and secure existing flight routes. Clearly, my hon. Friend took some good steps.
	There are many opportunities to base businesses in Northern Ireland, but what can be viewed as isolation from the UK is highlighted by the high cost of flights to and from the UK mainland. It is my belief that a reduction or abolition of APD would encourage more businesses to look at the potential for business expansion in many areas of Belfast and, indeed, my own constituency of Strangford, which has a highly educated and skilled work force in most areas and great links to the rest of the UK and Europe. We are asking for this issue to be considered again today not just for the benefit of our constituencies in Northern Ireland, but for the benefit of all constituencies across the whole of the United Kingdom.
	When this debate was announced, I was, as always, bombarded with constructive e-mails and briefings from many different companies that have made their case well. British Airways says in its briefing:
	“Abolishing APD would pay for itself by increasing revenues from other taxes such as Income Tax, VAT, and Corporation Tax. This benefit would amount to almost £0.5bn in the first year…APD is among the most distortive major taxes in the UK economy—more distortive than VAT, Income Tax, or Corporation Tax, and second only to Fuel Duty.”
	That sticks in the craw of many of our constituents.
	No matter how the Government try to play it or how deeply entrenched they sit in their revenue-raising mode, the fact is that our APD is much too high compared with those other countries that have it. In fact, the United Kingdom has the second highest air taxes and charges in the world, according to the World Economic Forum’s “The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2013”, which is right up to date. Only Chad in central Africa is ranked above the UK—imagine being second to Chad—in the list of 140 countries based on their ticket taxes and airport charges. The report states that
	“the United Kingdom continues to receive one of the poorest assessments for price competitiveness…in large part because it has the 2nd highest tax rate on tickets and airport charges worldwide.”
	We are the silver medallists behind Chad.
	European nations are cutting or abolishing their air passenger taxes. Of the 27 European Union nations, just six levy an air passenger tax, with Ireland agreeing to scrap its tax completely in 2014, having dropped it from €10 to €3 in 2011. The German Government froze air passenger tax in 2011 following the publication of a study undertaken on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Finance that found that the introduction of the tax at the beginning of 2011 had resulted in an estimated 2 million passengers changing their travelling
	behaviour, including an estimated 750,000 people who opted to fly from a non-German airport to avoid the tax. That demonstrates the very point that we have been trying to make throughout this debate: if we do away with air passenger duty, we will reap the benefits from those who choose to use airports in the United Kingdom as a result. The evidence from Germany and elsewhere proves that. In 2006-07, Denmark phased out its air passenger tax.
	We all know that money does not grow on trees. We are realists. If it did grow on trees, I would be very well off because I have 3,000 trees. Unfortunately, it is not like that. No money grows on my trees or on anybody else’s trees. Although we do not need to follow every step that the rest of Europe takes, it is clear that there is a good financial reason why other countries are taking those steps. Our reasoning should follow the same lines.
	The BA briefing statement said that the abolition of APD could result in an immediate increase in UK GDP, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim has said. The increase in GDP would be about £16 billion and there would be about 60,000 additional jobs. That would be a win-win for the Government and a net gain for the Exchequer.
	As time has beaten me, I plead with the Government to look at the big picture and to consider the big changes that would come from the abolition of APD.

Ian Paisley Jnr: It is a huge honour to follow the lumberjack from Strangford.
	My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) led the charge in putting this important case. He presented a compelling argument to the House. Indeed, he got us so far out in front of the Government that I do not think we will need to have a vote tonight. I congratulate him on the way he presented his case.
	I cannot believe that this Government—a Government with whom I have a lot of sympathy in many areas—want to tax people more than any other Government in the world when it comes to air travel. That is astounding. It is sad to see my friends on the Government Benches trying to defend the indefensible. This is a pernicious, nasty little tax that affects transport, ordinary people and jobs, prevents UK businesses from exporting and expanding, and harms growth by stopping inbound tourism.
	The tax affects ordinary citizens in the United Kingdom. If mum and dad in Northern Ireland want to take little Billy and Sarah to their nation’s capital, they will go on the internet and look at the cheap flights that they could take from Aldergrove airport or George Best Belfast City airport with easyJet, Aer Lingus, British Airways or any of the other airlines that operate out of Northern Ireland. If they book in advance, they will get tickets for the whole family for less than £100. Unfortunately, they would then have to write a cheque for £104 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the privilege of flying from one part of the United Kingdom to their nation’s capital. That is wrong. It is ridiculous. As the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) argued, it
	is grossly unfair to the citizens of the United Kingdom. The Government have an opportunity to stop it and they should stop it.
	Our competitors recognise that the tax is wrong. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) said in an early intervention, in 2009 the Netherlands followed Belgium in abolishing its equivalent of APD because although it raised the equivalent of £266 million in a year, the loss to the wider economy as a result of taxes from which the country did not benefit was almost £1 billion per year. The German Government have said that they will freeze their equivalent tax and the Minister of Transport has stated publicly that they want to abolish it. I believe that they will do so before the next German election.
	I draw Members’ attention to the words of the chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Howard Hastings, and a speech that he made in London on Monday evening. He is not known for being outspoken or as abrasive as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim, but he said:
	“It is daft at any level that there is a lower level of APD between Dublin and GB when compared to Belfast and GB”.
	He also said it was daft—doubly daft—to create a system in which thousands of visitors who come to Northern Ireland each year are
	“financially incentivised to come through Dublin, rather than through Heathrow—”
	or Gatwick, and our nation’s capital. He went on:
	“Our two airports are fighting to attract new routes, particularly from Continental Europe. Air passenger duty is a major stumbling block. Recently published evidence shows that the cross channel air capacity for Winter 2013 is 2.4% up on a year ago. But drill down a layer, and we see that the increase in capacity to the Republic is up 13,000 seats…or 10%”
	per year.
	If ever there was a compelling argument to remove something that is doubly daft from our tax system it is the argument that airport passenger duty must be scrapped, and it must be scrapped sooner rather than later.

William McCrea: I congratulate all Members who have taken part in the debate, and in winding-up on behalf of my colleagues I want to say that it has been an interesting discussion. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on the usual skilful and robust way in which he introduced the debate, and I thank him for sparing us his full views about green issues. His thought-provoking speech was certainly worthy of careful consideration, and I trust that those on the Treasury Bench listened to it carefully.
	I welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to her post, and as she said, we welcome the good economic news from Northern Ireland. I found it strange, however, that despite representing a party of low tax, she defended the highest APD anywhere in the world. I trust that when the Minister winds up the debate we will hear some different views.
	I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), to her post, and thank her for her keen interest. I accept her point that APD is an issue that affects the whole country, not simply Northern Ireland. Our motion
	acknowledges that because we have spread it out, taking in the whole United Kingdom, rather than only Northern Ireland.
	The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) proclaimed his low-tax conservatism. Having done that, however, he went on to defend why we should have the highest taxation in Europe—it was amazing to have the hon. Gentleman draw that to our attention, because in reality United Kingdom taxpayers are being taxed silly. He mentioned bringing down corporation tax. I acknowledge what the Government have done on that, but perhaps he should also bear in mind that Northern Ireland has a land border with a country that has a corporation tax of 12.5%, which is far below anything that the Government have done. We in Northern Ireland have a double whammy of taxation.

Kwasi Kwarteng: The hon. Gentleman will know that in this House I am absolutely in favour of low taxes, and I have said to the Chancellor that I think we should have corporation tax of 15%. I will always be in favour of lower corporation tax.

William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.
	I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for acknowledging the problems faced by regional airports—many hon. Members acknowledged that point in the debate. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) is right that statistics are worth repetition because they might get through to the Government, who must then answer to them.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) drew attention to the impact of the Irish Government on Northern Ireland. She was exactly right. It has been said that the UK Government cannot do what the Irish Government have done because of the deficit. However, I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Irish Government have a greater deficit problem than the UK Government. The Irish Government nevertheless believe that removing APD was of greater value economically. The Minister should bear that in mind when he expounds why we should not abolish APD—he should not say that it is because we are dealing with the deficit. As I have told him, the Irish Government have a greater problem, yet they have announced the measure in their budget.
	I am happy that the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) spared us the details of his trip to Amsterdam. Nevertheless, I hope he has learned something from the debate and will change his mind on any decision he makes later.
	I share the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon): a lot of ordinary people come to my constituency office because they have no Sinn Fein representation in the House and we must represent them. That is a disgraceful situation, but it is a fact, and we must accept the reality. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) gave the House an interesting report of the statement by Mr Hastings. That, too, is worthy of our consideration.
	It is clear from the debate that the civil aviation sector is one of the main pillars of economic growth in the UK, driving job creation and growth both at home and overseas, as well as providing air transport for goods
	and passengers. More than a third of world trade is delivered by air, and about half of international tourism is facilitated by air links. However, as hon. Members commented, UK passengers are taxed more for air travel than passengers anywhere in the world, with APD rates expected to rise again in line with inflation from 1 April 2014.
	In March 2013, the UK was ranked by the World Economic Forum as the world’s least-competitive country in terms of taxes and charges levied on air passengers. The TaxPayers Alliance has described APD as
	“an unwelcome burden on family holidays, a cost to business and redundant with the EU Emissions Trading System now being applied to aviation”,
	and has called for APD to be phased out entirely.
	Our vision for a strong and prosperous Britain can be achieved only with healthy and vibrant transport and economic development sectors. Air connectivity is the key to efficient trading and, as the UK economy continues to transform in the face of domestic and global change, it is essential that the aviation industry is given the certainty and incentive necessary to allow it to plan and invest for the long term. Time and again we are presented with the argument that APD has deterred airlines from opening new routes, especially in Northern Ireland, where robust air links are fundamental to underpinning our regional economy, and has compromised the ability of local businesses to attract new foreign direct investment.
	The situation is similar in Scotland. Amanda McMillan, managing director of Glasgow airport, has stated:
	“Due to the size of the market in Scotland, we will always find it difficult to attain and sustain new routes and this situation is compounded even further by APD which simply serves to artificially depress demand and dissuade airlines from basing aircraft here…Unless APD is reformed, people travelling to and from Scotland…will continue to face some of the highest levels of taxation in Europe which is clearly a disincentive to travel.”
	In an evidence session to the Northern Ireland Assembly Finance and Personnel Committee on 18 September, the director of the City of Derry airport, Damien Tierney, described APD as one of the “big factors” influencing airline decision making. Low-cost carriers such as easyJet and Ryanair, which account for most of the Province’s air travel, are particularly influenced by APD.

Nigel Dodds: Does my hon. Friend agree that APD has long since ceased to be an environmental tax, if it ever was, and is now simply a means of revenue generation for the Government?

William McCrea: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Throughout the debate, Government Members have acknowledged that APD is a way to deal with the deficit, so my right hon. Friend is spot on in identifying that this is another form of taxation on the people of the United Kingdom.
	Belfast International airport has noted in similar terms that APD has been held up as a barrier to airlines that might otherwise have shown interest in operating services in Northern Ireland, thereby limiting market opportunity and creating competitive disadvantage for operators. A 2011 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, entitled “Helping Economic Take Off”, looked at Northern Ireland’s geographical location, which makes us unique in both a UK and EU context. We are the most westerly part of the European Union and the only region of the
	UK separated by water, yet we share a land frontier with another member state. We have to travel and we have to trade, and air connectivity is the essential springboard from which future economic growth will be launched. The report, however, found that the continued imposition of APD would serve as a significant deterrent to further investment by existing or new carriers in existing or new air routes.
	Much has already been said in today’s debate about the Netherlands experience. The Dutch Government introduced an aviation tax in 2008 for passengers departing from Dutch airports. The Dutch air passenger duty proved controversial from the outset and decreasing passenger numbers, combined with the global economic crisis, led the Dutch Government to subsequently abolish it on 1 January 2010. Belgian plans for a ticket tax were not implemented for similar reasons and a Danish tax was withdrawn due to adverse economic impact. In January 2013, the German Government announced that they would freeze their air passenger tax, while the German Transport Minister has publicly stated that he would like the tax to be abolished completely. Will our Government not listen to what is happening across the rest of Europe? Surely those decisions are being made in the light of economic circumstances.
	The decision announced in last week’s budget by the Irish Government—that air travel tax is to be removed from 1 April 2014—has once again thrown APD into sharp focus, particularly its potential impact on the aviation sector in Northern Ireland. Concern has already been expressed by the Consumer Council of Northern Ireland that demand for air services in Northern Ireland could face decline, as people head south of the border to avoid tariffs. As Belfast International airport, in my constituency, has commented:
	“Any tax or regulation prevailing in Northern Ireland which makes our gateway less attractive than those across the border is entirely retrograde with regard to economic development”.
	As recognised by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its two previous reports, Northern Ireland suffers greatly from its shared land mass with the Irish Republic, where the abolition of air travel tax, along with low corporation tax, start-up incentives and marketing funds, will now make it even harder for Northern Ireland to compete for cheaper fares and new route development. Belfast International airport, which lies on the shores of Lough Neagh in my constituency, is the main international port of entry for the province and has proved itself to be an essential component of the local economy and regional growth, as well as being a strategic asset nationally.
	In conclusion, I realise that time has run out and I want the Minister to have the opportunity to respond to the debate. I thank every right hon. and hon. Member for participating. I trust that the Government have listened to what has been said and will take away the motion and the thoughts of the House, rather than seek to divide it.

David Gauke: We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate, given that it has focused on one particular tax, and I thank hon. Members for their contributions. We began with the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy
	Wilson), who delivered a wide-ranging speech in which he made it clear that APD did not constitute a green tax but that, even if it did, he would be against it. He was described by various hon. Members as “trenchant”, “outspoken” and even “abrasive”—and those were the comments from his hon. Friends. However, he set out a strong case on behalf of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the UK more widely. Interestingly, the motion applies to APD across the UK; it is not specifically a Northern Irish issue.
	We heard from the new Economic Secretary—I add my words of welcome to the many warm words already offered—who has already demonstrated that she will be a formidable Treasury Minister. We then heard from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), whom I also congratulate on her move to the post of shadow Economic Secretary, although I am saddened that she is no longer the shadow Exchequer Secretary. I am pleased, however, that we have had the opportunity to debate again so soon, and I am sure that we have many happy hours together in Finance Bill Committees ahead of us. She was very critical of Government policy although, as her history of APD pointed out, the regime in place is largely the one that we inherited from the previous Government. Despite her criticisms, she did not give us any examples of what she would change, but we were grateful for her contribution none the less.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), who has a strong interest both in aviation and in lower taxes, made the point very strongly that we have to reduce the deficit. His injunction that we should not slacken on deficit reduction was sensible advice.
	The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) raised Scottish concerns, citing criticism that APD rates had rocketed since 2007. I should point out that, since 2010, APD has risen in line with inflation—it has been frozen in real terms. That means, for example, that since 2010, the price of an economy ticket for a short-haul flight—such tickets apply to the majority of passenger flights—has risen from £12 to £13. It is worth pointing out that that is an increase of £1. He also raised concerns about the impact of APD on Scotland, but the most recent figures I have—for 2010-11—show that passenger numbers at Scottish airports grew by 5.5%, so they are not being slashed by any means.

Angus MacNeil: rose—

David Gauke: No doubt the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene and take the credit for the Scottish Government.

Angus MacNeil: I do not need to take the credit for the Scottish Government, because the Minister has already given the credit to them, for which I thank him. Can he discern any real difference between his position and that of the Opposition, because I cannot?

David Gauke: Is the implication of the hon. Gentleman’s question that he managed to identify the position of Labour Front Benchers, because I could not particularly?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) delivered a thoughtful speech in which he set out the evolution of his own thinking and made the case for regional airports. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised a
	point on behalf of her constituents who originally come from the Caribbean. Such a point was also made in interventions, so let me reiterate that APD must adhere to international rules on aviation tax—a point that she acknowledged—specifically the Chicago convention. The capital city convention in APD ensures that the duty complies with the rules. She asked why we could not reform the bands. We could move to having two bands, and we did examine that as part of the 2011 consultation, but no banding structure can be entirely free of anomalies, and a revenue-neutral move to two bands would require an increase in APD for about 90% of passengers, including those flying to Europe and the United States. We were not attracted to that approach.
	The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) raised a point about Scotland, following on from the contribution by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. He rightly said that there would be an implication if the tax were devolved to Scotland and then abolished, because the cost of that would have to be found from the block grant. We have not estimated what that would be, but such a decision would have consequences to comply with EU state aid rules. It is also worth pointing out that we would need to take into account any market distortions that would be created and that the cost would have to take into account any lost revenue for neighbouring English airports, for example. That is not an insignificant point.
	The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) spoke about domestic flights. It is worth pointing out that several European countries put VAT on domestic flights, whereas the UK does not—the rate is 19% in Germany, 21% in the Netherlands and 27% in Hungary. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) made the point that we would like to get rid of most taxes, but we are not in a position to do so. He also highlighted the fact that rates have increased with inflation. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) argued that there would be a net gain for the Exchequer if APD were abolished, but we do not agree—I shall set out the reasons why in a moment.
	The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) spoke against the tax and also hoped that we could all unite behind the motion. I am terribly sorry to say that I have to disappoint him on both fronts. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) summed up the debate, arguing that we should perhaps follow the example of the Republic of Ireland, which is not always an argument that I hear from him.
	As I have made clear, APD makes a crucial contribution to tackling our fiscal challenges. The tax raises nearly £3 billion in annual revenue. Contrary to the claims of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which has been cited frequently, scrapping APD would not be costless; it would result in a significant loss to the Exchequer. Unless we were to give up on our fiscal goals—my hon. Friends have been absolutely right to highlight the need for us to maintain discipline on reducing the deficit—the lost revenue would therefore need to be found elsewhere, either by increasing other taxes or by further reducing our public spending. In the course of the debate, I have heard few realistic proposals as to how that could be done. Not only would scrapping APD create substantial costs to the Exchequer, but the benefits of such a step would be small compared with those of the policies that the Government have already put in place.
	We are not persuaded by the case that has been put before us. We cannot take risks with the public finances, so we will not be supporting the motion.
	Question put.
	The House proceeded to a Division.

Dawn Primarolo: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 13, Noes 284.

Question accordingly negatived.

Anne Main: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask through the Chair whether any application has been made for a statement on the recent developments concerning the Arctic 30? I am sure that many of us will be pleased to hear tonight that the charges against them have been downgraded from piracy to hooliganism. Some are related to, or friends of, Members, and one is a constituent of the Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend has said. Is there any chance of them now being granted bail, and what does the development mean in terms of the possibility of their being repatriated home to this country?

Dawn Primarolo: As the hon. Lady will know, that is not strictly a point of order. The matter of statements is something the Government themselves determine and I have no knowledge of that, but she has had the opportunity to raise her point in the Chamber and, importantly, to get her views on record. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have taken note of what she said.

Jim Shannon: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There is not a point of order, Mr Shannon. Having just ruled that what we heard was not a point of order, I can hardly allow you to speak further to what is a non-point of order.

PETITION
	 — 
	Probation Service

Iain Wright: I rise to present a petition initiated by the Hartlepool probation service, which is part of the Durham and Tees Valley Probation Trust, and I understand that every single officer, manager and administrator working in the Hartlepool office has agreed with, and signed, the petition.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of a resident of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioner opposes the Government’s plan to abolish the Probation Service in its current form and to privatise up to 70% of work currently undertaken by it. The Petitioners believe that those convicted by a Criminal Court should be supervised by those employed by a publicly accountable Probation Service such as currently exists; further that the Petitioner opposes the Government’s plan to abolish the 35 public sector Probation Trusts replacing them with one Probation Service that only supervises those deemed to be of a high risk of harm to the public. It is envisaged under the current plan, 70% of probation’s work will be subject to a competitive process which excludes the Probation Service. The Petitioner believes that such a plan is “high risk” in that it could place the public at a greater risk of harm.
	The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to stop the planned changes to the Probation Service.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001232]

IN-PATIENT MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES (CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Karen Bradley.)

Alan Johnson: Last week, Dr Martin Baggaley, medical director of the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, said that mental health services in England are unsafe and in crisis. At the same time, BBC News and Community Care magazine printed the results of a freedom of information request to mental health trusts around the country, which revealed that 1,500 mental health beds had closed since 2011. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is among the many expert organisations that have expressed concerns about poor in-patient mental health provision, particularly for children and adolescents. In response, the Minister of State, Department of Health, who I am pleased to see is present, said that he was determined to end the institutional bias against mental health. This debate presents an opportunity for him to do something in pursuit of that noble objective.
	There is increasing demand for mental health services, and all the research shows that early intervention is essential to prevent mental health problems developing in later life. One in 10 children aged between five and 16 suffer from a diagnosable mental health disorder, half of which, with the exclusion of dementia, start before the age of 14. Yet, although the Government claim to be increasing expenditure on health, child and adolescent mental health services in England have been grappling with unprecedented cuts to their funding over the past two years.
	Many MPs will know that from their experience in their constituencies, where social care and education funding, which is such an important part of CAMHS budgets, is having to be reduced dramatically. The charity YoungMinds found that since 2010 two thirds of local authorities in England have reduced their CAMHS budget. The contrast with physical health budgets is a stark manifestation of the institutional bias against mental health.
	The West End unit in my constituency was the only in-patient mental health facility for Hull and the East Riding. It closed in March while a consultation on CAMHS—which, incidentally, gave no opportunity for respondents to voice an opinion on whether the unit should remain open—was still under way. So much for “No decision about me, without me”.
	Can the Minister confirm that the guidance to section 244 of the National Health Service Act 2006 concerning consultation states:
	“No final decisions—even decisions in principle—must be taken until the public has been consulted and the results of the consultation have been considered by the NHS body”?
	When I raised that appalling breach of the Government’s own guidance on consultations, I was told that West End was closed by the unaccountable monolith otherwise known as NHS England. It changed the specification for tier 4 services and the West End in-patient unit that provided high-quality services in Hull and the East Riding for 20 years closed as a result.
	I felt sure that Hull could not have been the only area affected, so I submitted a parliamentary question asking how many in-patient mental health units had ceased to operate.

Jim Shannon: In my constituency 33% of young people have depression. That rises to 50% among those who are unemployed. Does the right hon. Gentleman’s area have the same concerns as I have in my area? We have taken steps in Northern Ireland to address the issues, and perhaps the Government need to do the same here.

Alan Johnson: This debate is about services in England, but I confirm that part of the problem is the fact that there is a rising need for adolescent and child mental health services and a decreasing capacity to deal with that need.
	I asked the Minister in a parliamentary question which other areas had been affected and which units had ceased to operate. I was told by the Minister that no units had ceased to operate as a result of this change and nor were any closures expected when the change was introduced on 1 October. As I said, the unit in Hull closed in March. The change had already happened. Will the Minister take this opportunity to correct that answer?
	Not only did West End close in March, but we are beginning to hear of closures across the country, including in Devon and Somerset, where my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) has been pursuing this issue vigorously with the chief executive of NHS England, who confirmed in a letter to him that other units had closed as a result of the change to tier 4 specification well before the spurious 1 October date.

Ben Bradshaw: Is my right hon. Friend, a former Health Secretary, aware that, in Devon, that has led to young people being admitted to adult mental health residential units, in clear breach of the Mental Health Act 2007—a scandalous position? I hope that the Minister will have something to say about that when he responds.

Alan Johnson: I am aware that that has happened. I feel sure that, as the debate gathers momentum, Members from other parts of the country will have similar experiences.
	Let me be clear. I fully accept that for the majority of young people, a community-based approach to mental health problems will give them the best treatment, but for a number of children and their families, intensive in-patient care is necessary. Those children need an approach that spans the whole network of provision, not just health, but education and social care, which cannot be replicated in a child’s home—if they have a home; many of the children affected are in care.
	West End provided such services. Its in-patient facility was judged inadequate because it was available for only five nights a week. But combined with weekends at home, this provided an excellent service, which the parents who experienced it fully supported. Their preference was to extend the unit to a seven-day service, if that was what was necessary to meet the new specification, but that alternative was never offered or discussed.

Alison Seabeck: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has seen the note from the Royal College of Psychiatrists flagging up the point that because of the cuts to tier 3 there is increased pressure on and more likely to be admissions to tier 4, yet here we are discussing closures. That is a real problem.

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. YoungMinds, the charity that deals specifically with child and adolescent mental health, makes exactly the same point. We need early intervention, and if we are cutting back on tier 3 there will be a bigger problem with tier 4. If the problems are not addressed anyway, we are stacking up a host of problems, and costs, never mind the tragedy to the individuals when they reach adulthood.
	It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the changes have nothing to do with improving care, and everything to do with saving money. The closure of the West End unit has had a profound effect. I have a constituent who is a single mother, who works for the NHS as a staff nurse, whose 13-year-old daughter suffered a severe mental breakdown two years ago. Her daughter spent nine months at West End, which opened at weekends specifically to accommodate her needs. Her mother believes that the treatment given by the excellent staff at West End saved her little girl’s life.
	When my constituent’s daughter needed further treatment this year, after West End had closed its in-patient facility, she was first of all sent to Leeds, 66 miles away, where the inability of her mother and five-year-old brother to spend as much time with her, led to a further deterioration in her health. She was then incarcerated with young offenders in Cheadle, 103 miles from her home. Her mother, coping with a five-year-old son and a job in the NHS, spent nine hours travelling to have just one hour with her daughter. For the rest of the time she was forced to listen to her deeply unhappy daughter sobbing at the other end of a phone. Is this what the NHS has come to? Is this the kind of treatment that any of us would accept for our children?

Andrew Percy: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Obviously, this is a matter that affects my constituency too. He is right to raise the issue, but sadly this is nothing new. In 2008, my constituency saw all its in-patient mental health beds go, resulting in patients having to travel much further, often to Hull, and their families struggling to be near them, so I agree with him entirely on this point. Does he agree that it is important that people are treated in the community as much as possible, but where necessary, treated at in-patient units in their localities?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is talking about the closure of adult in-patient services, which had to move from Goole to Hull. The irony is that in-patient mental health facilities for adults exist in Hull. Providing care close to home is important for adults, but surely it is even more important for six, seven and eight-year-old children. The further away they are from their parents, the more their mental health situation is likely to deteriorate.

Diana Johnson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I want to raise the case of a constituent
	of mine whose daughter is having treatment on the other side of Manchester, 115 miles away from their home in Hull. He has not been able to see his daughter for three weeks because of the financial implications of having to travel so far. He is distraught about not being able to give the emotional support that his daughter needs at this time. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that that is totally unacceptable when we are dealing with the mental health issues of young people?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has been fighting a battle about the West End unit. It started with one constituent, but we now know that up to 13 have been affected in that way, one of whom she has mentioned.
	In medical care we often talk of the need to concentrate operations in fewer locations in order to maximise expertise, but that is not a relevant argument for child and adolescent mental health. In the case of my constituent’s 13-year-old daughter, for instance, the specialist consultant had to travel from Hull to Cheadle to see his patient. It cost the NHS £1,000 a day to provide that appalling service, but that is without the cost of the consultant having to travel to see his patient.
	One case of this nature in Hull would be bad enough, but there have been 13 such cases, and probably more, since we lost in-patient services. Youngsters from Hull and the East Riding have been sent to Manchester, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) mentioned, and Northampton as well as to Leeds and Cheadle. That is worsening the condition of the children concerned.
	Trying to address the problem in the newly reorganised NHS bequeathed to us by the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) is a nightmare. NHS England is responsible for in-patient care, clinical commissioning groups are responsible for out-patient services, local authorities are responsible for public health and the Humber NHS Foundation Trust, the provider, says that it is absolutely powerless in the matter. I have been told by the director of commissioning that, if a proper in-patient service were offered to the mental health trust in Hull and the East Riding, it would have to decline the commission because the tariff is so low. I wonder whether the Minister can comment on that.
	The service is removed by NHS England without consultation because it is available for only five nights a week. The CCG then tries retrospectively to justify the closure, saying that it is underused, and we will hear more about that from the Minister—I tell him that there is gaming going on to try retrospectively to justify something that it cannot justify on an intellectual basis. The mental health trust says that it cannot operate it anyway because the tariff is too low.
	The public in Hull want the in-patient facility restored. A local businessman has even offered the use of Elloughton castle in east Yorkshire as a location for in-patient care, but he can find nobody in the NHS prepared to talk to him—I know how he feels. Only the Department of Health can sort of this mess by ordering the re-provision of in-patient units, including at West End.
	The Minister should also reinstate the child and adolescent national psychiatric morbidity survey to begin to address the lack of meaningful data since its cessation.
	I am pleased that the adult version has been restored, but the child and adolescent version has not. Above all, he needs to address the problem of diminishing funding for mental health.
	I hope that the Minister will meet me and my constituent whose daughter has received such appalling treatment in order to begin a proper dialogue about the closures with those who have been genuinely affected. Only then can we begin to say that we are addressing the institutional bias against mental health in this country, which he and I both know exists and both want to eradicate.

Norman Lamb: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) on securing the debate. It brings back happy memories of the times when I used to shadow him in his previous job as Secretary of State. He raises an incredibly important issue. Let me say right at the start that I would be very happy to meet him, together with his constituent and NHS England. Having read the brief and listened to him, I am conscious that there is some confusion about the number of children involved, the acuity of their condition and so forth. I want to get to the bottom of that and understand exactly what is going on to ensure that we get the right facilities available for children in his part of the country.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked in his introduction about the reduction in the number of in-patient mental health beds. That, of course, is a trend that has been going on for the past two decades, under his Government and this Government, and rightly so. There has been a substantial shift towards early intervention and care in the community, rather than institutional care. However, there is still a long way to go. Too many people with mental health issues stay too long in in-patient beds, which tend not to be a therapeutic environment, much as we would want them to be. On the whole, however, the trend has been in the right direction, as the right hon. Gentleman would probably agree.
	The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the data issue. I completely agree. Mental health issues have been a data-free zone. He talked about the loss of one particular data set, but in the mental health sector we struggle in an absence of data and of understanding of the evidence about what interventions work effectively. That has to be addressed and it is being addressed.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned what I said about the institutional bias. There is absolutely an institutional bias against mental health issues. One example is the 18-week wait for treatment for physical health conditions, which his Government introduced—rightly so, because people were waiting for far too long. But people with mental health conditions were left out. No one with such conditions has any understanding of when they should be seen; there is no access standard. There is no requirement for someone with an eating disorder, which can kill, to be admitted for care and treatment within a defined period. I am determined to end that because such provisions drive where the money goes in the NHS.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that, as a result of decisions of commissioners around the country, funding for mental health conditions has gone down
	whereas that for physical health conditions has gone up. That is because of how money works in the NHS. We have to end that institutional bias. I suspect that we completely agree about that.
	I fully appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about child and adolescent in-patient mental health services, and I am aware that this is not the first time he has raised them. We have corresponded about the issue and can consider it further when we meet. Caring for children and young people with mental health problems is incredibly serious and it is a priority for the Government. We want to achieve parity of esteem between physical and mental health, which should be regarded as just as important as each other. Historically, that has not been the case—that is not a party political point, but a fact.
	The Health and Social Care Act 2012 sets out the equal status for mental and physical health. Our overarching goal is to ensure that everyone who needs it has timely access to the best care and treatment available. We have made improving and treating mental health conditions a key priority for NHS England. One of the 24 objectives in the mandate, which sets out the Government’s priorities, is to put mental health on a par with physical health and close the health gap between people with mental health problems and the population as a whole.
	Why do those with mental health problems die years earlier than those with physical health problems? We will hold the NHS to account for the quality of services and outcomes for mental health patients through the NHS outcomes framework, which at last assesses what results we are achieving for individuals as a result of the money spent. There is a strong desire for change across the health sector—and the justice sector as well.
	We are working with a range of agencies and representative organisations to develop a single national crisis care concordat. Crisis care for children and adults is simply not acceptable in too many parts of the country. What we are trying to achieve together is a joint statement of intent and common purpose—an agreement about what each service everywhere should do, and when it should do it. It will help to ensure that people who find themselves in need of immediate support for their poor mental health get the right services when they need them and the help they need to move on from their episodes of personal crisis.
	Of course, our aim must be to support our children and young people with mental health problems in the community wherever possible. I absolutely share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern and that of other Members who talk about children being sent long distances from home. As a parent, I would feel exactly the same. The most important thing is that such children should be in the right facility with the right care and treatment. As we are trying to care for more youngsters in the community, the specialist units become more specialist. It is not right for a child with an eating disorder, for example, to be put into an in-patient unit that does not specialise in eating disorders. Getting the right facility is crucial, but that sort of distance causes me great concern, and I accept that we need to address it.

Alan Johnson: Will the Minister give way?

Norman Lamb: Of course, very briefly.

Alan Johnson: I thank the Minister, and I am pleased that he is going to meet me and my constituent. Will he confirm the consultation process set out in the 2006 Act? Will he also say something about the tariff, which I am told by the clinical commissioning group in the East Riding would prevent the provider from accepting in-patient care, even if it were restored, because it means that it loses money?

Norman Lamb: . The right hon. Gentleman raises the tariff, and that is what I want to get to the bottom of. I genuinely want to understand the issue and reach a conclusion on it, and I hope that by meeting we will be able to do that.
	We want to ensure excellent child and adolescent mental health services facilities across the country. That is why we are investing £54 million over a four-year period in the children’s and young people’s IAPT—improving access to psychological therapies—programme. That will drive service transformation in CAMHS, giving children and young people improved access to the best mental health care by embedding evidence-based practice which has been absent in these services until now and making sure that they use session-by-session outcome monitoring. The IAPT programme is fundamental to the success of our mental health programme. Our children’s IAPT programme is ambitious in its objectives. Its aim is service transformation with an emphasis on evidence-based practice and a rigorous focus on frequent session-by-session outcome monitoring. It differs from the adult IAPT programme in working across existing community-based CAMHS rather than creating new services.

Ben Bradshaw: I am sorry to have to say this, but the Minister’s speech is just waffle. Will he accept that the Government’s reorganisation of the national health service has led to confusion as to who is responsible for the interface between tier 3 and tier 4 mental health services for young people? Will he look at the cases I have raised with the Secretary of State of young people from my constituency being sent to Newcastle—the north-east of England—and all over the country, and being sent to adult wards, in breach of the law?

Norman Lamb: I do not think it has been waffle at all. I have tried to answer very directly the concerns that have been expressed. I will absolutely look into the cases that the right hon. Gentleman raises. When I hear reference to children being placed in adult services, I find that as unacceptable as he does. I want to understand how it has happened and bring it to an end. NHS England is carrying out a review over a three-month period to assess the facilities for tier 4 services to ensure that sufficient services are available in all parts of the country. Because of the nature of the specialism, they cannot be in every town and city, but they must be within reasonable reach. That is exactly what the review is seeking to undertake.

Alan Johnson: I have just heard in the last 10 minutes that the staff of the West End unit have been told that its day services will close on 20 December. There has been no consultation and it is the first I have heard of it. Will the Minister look into that immediately? This is no longer about in-patient mental health services; it is about all mental services in Hull and the East Riding.

Norman Lamb: Yes, of course I will look into it. It is the first I have heard of it, and I need to understand the full facts. It is important to say that the centre was only occasionally used for overnight stays, as I think the right hon. Gentleman recognises. That was certainly the case in 2012-13. Let us establish the facts. I am very happy to meet him, together with NHS England and his constituents, so that we can get to the
	bottom of this and provide proper answers on an issue that causes real concern not only to him but to me and to his constituents.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.